/ 2/. ekecufed by The presen‘r applicar if in favour of one Rajesh Vinayak Ran Nimbharkar', hawever, The said power of a’r’ror‘ney was To remain in force only up fo 7.3.2006, whereas, fher‘efo. I have heard learned coun ‘ The facT wheTher' The ower of aTTorney execuTed by The applicanT herein was valid on The aTe of issuance of cheques is a maTTer To be considered afTer evidenc is recorded in The maTTer and The compIainT cannoT be quashed on T T ground aT The incepTion. Therefore, The peTiTion h W MISHBA Judge fhe cheques were issued subsequenf el for‘ The applicanT. no subsTance, The some deserves To be dismissed and iT is hereby dis issed aT The admission Sdl— RA ’ D [113% éfavi