N.I.Act
Sumit Lal
(Querist) 24 November 2009
This query is : Resolved
Respected Seniors and Experts.
In a case filed under Section 138 N.I.Act, the complainant is a proprietorship firm but the complaint has been filed through the power of attorney holder and not by the Proprietor.
In cross examination, the power of attorney holder has categorically stated that he has no personal knowledge about the business transaction with the accused. No more witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.
My Query is :
in the circumstance Can a power of attorney holder give evidence in Court on behalf of the proprietor with regards to the facts to which he does not have any knowledge?
Kindly refer few case laws.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 24 November 2009
Complaint in the given facts can be filed and it is valid but if he has failed to state about the legally enforceable debt of the firm towards the accused then its benefit shall definitely go in favour of the accused.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 24 November 2009
A constituted attorney can not testify in place of the principal if in the matter in question he does not have any personal knowledge. A very well established principle of law.
Anish goyal
(Expert) 25 November 2009
See janki vashdeo bhojwani V. Indusind bank ltd 2005 sc
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 25 November 2009
It is a good to the accused, moreover complaint is filed thru., PA holder, who cannot file a complaint thru., PA holder. And PA holder cannot depose on behalf of the complainant, regarding PA holder citation is reported in ILR Kar 1999.
In this case PA holder failed to answer in the cross examination, to prove the legally payable debt burden lies on the complainant. IN this case PA holder failed to prove it.
It is mandatory to the PA holder to have the personal knowledge.
