IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( MAIN ) NO. 188 OF 2009 SHRI. SUBHASH WADARI ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 29th June, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. The Applicant is an accused against whom process was issued by the learned J.M.F.C., under Section 138 of NIA, 1881. The Applicant did not challenge the said order of issuing of process but filed an application to stop the proceeding which was dismissed by order dated 8.8.2008. The application was dismissed also because earlier the Applicant had filed a similar application and which was dismissed by order dated 21.6.2007. The Applicant preferred Revision application to the Court of Sessions against the order dated 8.8.2008 but the same was dismissed as time barred. The Applicant is therefore before this Court challenging the order dated 8.8.2008 of the learned Magistrate. 3. It appears that process was issued against the Applicant on a complaint filed through the Power of Attorney of the complainant. The Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that there was no averment in the complaint to show that the Attorney was present when the facts stated in the complaint took place. Learned Counsel further submits that the Power of Attorney, prima facie, does not show that the attorney was conferred with powers to depose on behalf of the complainant. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Roy Joseph Creado & Ors. V/s Sk. Tamisuddin & Ors. (2008 CRI. L.J. 1509). 4. As already stated, the Applicant chose not to challenge the order of issuing process against him dated 14.9.2006 nor the first order dated 21.6.2007. The challenge before the Court of Sessions was to the order dated 8.8.2008, which challenge has been rejected. The Applicant's application for stopping the proceeding was rejected by the learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 21.6.2007 and again the Applicant chose not to challenge the said order. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8.8.2008. Since the applicant has not challenged the order issuing process dated 14.9.2006 or refusing to recall the same by order dated 21.6.2007, no useful purpose would be served by challenging the order dated 8.8.2008. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction. The Applicant would be certainly entitled to take the objection, now raised by him before this Court in cross examination/Trial of the complainant through the said Power of Attorney. In the light of the above, the application is rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. at*