- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Payyati Savitri Devi v. Mali Reddy Damayanthamma And Anr.
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision challenges an order of the I Class Magistrate, Gudivada, which rejected the petitioner's objection that the complaint was not maintainable. The underlying complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Smt. M. Damayantamma through her authorised agent, Sri Mallireddy Satyanarayana Reddy, who held a registered general power of attorney authorising him to recover her debts. The complaint alleges the complainant is an aged woman of about 60 years in indifferent health and that Mallireddy Satyanarayana Reddy is her nephew. Before cross-examining PW1, the petitioner-accused objected that the complaint was not maintainable because it was signed and filed by the person holding the general power of attorney; that objection was rejected by the magistrate. The petitioner preferred this revision challenging that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when filed by a person holding a general power of attorney on behalf of the complainant.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner-Accused's Arguments
- The complaint is not maintainable because it was signed and filed by a person holding a general power of attorney for the complainant (i.e., that a POA-holder cannot institute the complaint).
Complainant's / Respondent's Position
- The complaint was filed through an authorised agent (Sri Mallireddy Satyanarayana Reddy) who holds a registered general power of attorney empowering him to recover all the complainant's debts. The complaint also notes the complainant's age and indifferent health.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Manimekalai… v. Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi…., 1995 Crl. L.J 1102 | Held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed through a person holding a power of attorney. | The court relied on this authority to support the conclusion that a complaint under Section 138 may be instituted by a POA-holder and to justify upholding the magistrate's order rejecting the petitioner's objection. |
| Abhyoyeshwari v. Kishori Mohan Banerjee, AIR 1914 Cal. 479 | Held (on its facts) that where a general power of attorney was given for presentation of criminal complaints, in the absence of a specific power of attorney the complaint (for defamation) could not be filed. | The court treated this decision as distinguishable on facts because that case involved a blanket power of attorney for presentation of criminal complaints and absence of a specific authority for the defamation complaint; it did not control the present matter. |
| Koya Moideen v. Hahharem, 1996 (4) Crimes 434 | Concerned a complaint filed on the strength of a Will alleged to have been executed by the father of the complainant; the Will was not filed and its genuineness was disputed. | The court found this authority distinguishable: the Kerala High Court's decision rested on absence of adjudication on the Will's validity, not on any principle that a POA-holder is incompetent to institute a complaint under Section 138. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded from statutory interpretation and applicable precedents. It observed that Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved, and that the proviso and related provisions (Sections 198-A and 199) specifically name persons who may institute certain complaints. The court noted there is no general provision in the CrPC forbidding the filing of complaints for other offences (including under special laws such as the Negotiable Instruments Act) by persons other than those specifically named in Sections 198, 198-A and 199.
Relying on Manimekalai..., the court accepted that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed through a person holding a power of attorney. The court reviewed and distinguished earlier decisions relied upon by the petitioner: Abhyoyeshwari was factually distinguishable because it involved a blanket POA and the absence of a specific authority for the particular complaint; Koya Moideen was distinguishable because its reasoning turned on a disputed Will and not on the competency of a POA-holder to file a Section 138 complaint. On that basis, the court found no error in the lower court's rejection of the petitioner’s objection.
Holding and Implications
Revision dismissed.
Implications:
- The magistrate's order rejecting the objection is upheld and the revision is dismissed as devoid of substance.
- As applied in this case, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by a person holding a general power of attorney was treated as maintainable in light of authority cited; no new legal precedent was articulated beyond the court's application of existing decisions and statutory interpretation.
1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the I Class Magistrate, Gudivada, whereby the objection of the petitioner that the complaint be dismissed being not maintainable has been rejected.
2. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint has been filed by Smt. M. Damayantamma through her authorised agent Sri Mallireddy Satyanarayana Reddy who is holding the registered general power of attorney executed by the complainant in his favour authorising him to recover all her debts.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the complaint is an aged woman of about 60 years and is keeping indifferent health. Malireddy Satyanarayana Reddy is the nephew of the complainant-1st respondent.
4. The petitioner-accused before starting cross-examining PW1 filed an objection alleging that the complaint is not maintainable because it has been signed and filed by the person holding the general power of attorney of the complainant. This objection has been rejected.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been preferred.
6. In the case of Manimekalai… v. Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi…., 1995 Crl. L.J 1102, it is held that, complaint can be filed for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through the person holding a power of attorney. Under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is provided that no Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence and it is mentioned in the proviso that under certain circumstances, the complaint can be lodged by persons named in it. Similarly, persons have been named who can institute the. complaint under Section 198-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no provision in the Code of the Criminal Procedure which forbids filing of the complaint for committing other offences either under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law except Sections 198, 198-A and 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided under these sections.
7. The case of Abhyoyeshwari v. Kishori Mohan Banerjee, AIR 1914 Cal. 479 is distinguishable on facts because a general power of attorney was given to the complainant therein for presentation of criminal complaints. Thus, it appears that for committing any offence, a blanket power of attorney had been given and under these circumstances, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that in the absence of a specific power of attorney, the complaint for defamation cannot be filed. As noted above, complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code can be filed by persons as mentioned under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, the case of Koya Moideen v. Hahharem, 1996 (4) Crimes 434 is also distinguishable on facts. The reason is that, on the strength of a Will alleged to have been executed by the father of the complainant, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the Will was not filed and it was alleged that the Will was not genuine. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court has held that without an adjudication regarding the validity of the Will, the petitioner-accused could not be prosecuted. The learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court has not observed that, a person holding a power of attorney is incompetent to institute a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the lower Court cannot be faulted with.
9. No other or further point has been raised on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, the revision, being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed.
Alert