- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2157 OF 2007 Sharad A. Rochlaney Applicant Vs. Nirmaladevi Naveenkumar & Anr. Respondents Mr. S. V. Marvadi i/b M. D. Mali, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2008. PC . The trial Court issued process against the present petitioner who is accused No.3 in a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said order was challenged by filing the Revision before the Session Court. The Session Judge dismissed the revision and hence, the present petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the complaint as filed is not maintainable, as in view of the provision of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 only a payee - 2 - or the holder in due course of the cheque is entitled to file a complaint. The complaint has been filed by Sou. Nirmaladevi Naveenkumar Punmiya (Jain) through power of attorney. As the complainant herself is a payee, no fault can be found with the filing of the complaint by her, though the same has been filed through a power of attorney holder. Secondly, it is contended that the power of attorney has been executed prior to the commission of offence and thus, the power of attorney holder cannot act for and on behalf of person as he has no knowledge of the transaction in question. Whether a person can act as the power of attorney holder or not, depends on the terms incorporated in the document. Obviously, no fault can be found with issuance of process. Hence, the petition is summarily dismissed. Sd/- [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]