RANJITHA BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. SANTHI GROUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgement of acquittal passed by the Court of the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, mayohall, Bangalore, dated 21. 06. 2000, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).

(2.) THE power of attorney holder of the appellants herein filed a complaint before the Addl. C. M. M. , Bangalore, alleging that the accused had received a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainants promising that a plot of land developed by the accused would be sold to them and afterwards, the complainants came to know that the accused have not developed any land and they demanded the accused to return their money and the accused agreed to refund the amount with interest and issued a Cheque for Rs. 5,70,000/- on 25. 01. 1999 drawn on Canara Bank, Lalbagh west Gate Branch, Bangalore, and when the said cheque was presented for payment, the same was dishonoured for "insufficient funds" and thereafter, notice was issued to the accused on 10. 02. 1999 demanding the amount of the cheque and the same was not paid by the accused and wherefore, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act,

(3.) SUMMONS was issued to the accused. Plea of the accused was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the complainants, power of attorney holder was examined as PW1 and accused No. 3 was examined as DW1 and the complainants got marked Exs. Pl to P9. The Trial Court after considering the contentions of the parties and the material on record, dismissed the complaint on the ground that Sri N. Ramesh Shankaran, who has filed the complaint stating that he is the power of attorney holder of the appellants-complainants, has not produced the power of attorney and in the absence of proof of power of attorney, he has not proved that he was authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the principal and he has also not proved that he was authorized to depose on behalf of the principal and in the absence of power of attorney, the complaint is not maintainable and wherefore, it is unnecessary to go into the other points involved in the case and accordingly, acquitted the accused of the offence alleged against them under Section 138 of the Act by judgement dated 21. 06. 2000 and being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.