In the case of A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790 : AIR 2014 SC 630 : 2014 Cri LJ 576, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:
- The power-of-attorney holder may be allowed to file the complaint, appear and depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
- However, when the power-of-attorney holder of the complainant has not witnessed or does not have a personal knowledge about the transactions, then he cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
- However, where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot depose as a witness.
- Nevertheless, an explicit assertion as to the knowledge of the power-of-attorney holder about the transaction in question must be specified in the complaint.
- However, it is clarified that the power-of-attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. In other words, he can only initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal.
- Section 200 Cr.P.C. does not create any embargo that the power-of-attorney holder or legal representative(s) cannot be a complainant.
I hope your query is sufficiently answered by the observations of the Supreme Court in the above case.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
