JITENDRA CHIMANLAL PARIKH Vs. ARVIND KANTILAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant ' original complainant under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order dtd. 18/8/2005 in Criminal Case No.705 of 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasinor (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.1 ' original accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' and 'the accused' as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant ' the original complainant, who is the Power of Attorney Holder of Radhika Jitendra Parikh, has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that power of attorney holder cannot file the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act. The learned Trial Court has also erred in holding that the complaint is signed by Jitendra C. Parikh who is the husband of Radhika Jitendra Parikh and Power of Attorney Holder and the learned Trial Court has not considered the contentions written in the Power of Attorney. The Trial Court has erred in referring that the Power of Attorney is given by a married woman to her husband and the same is general Power of Attorney not Special Power of Attorney and the same has not been revoked. The leaned Trial Court has not considered the relevant documents including the cheque at Exh.53, Memo at Exh.54, Information Letter at Exh.55 and Office Copy of the Notice at Exh.58 and notice along with envelope at Exh.57. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the further statement of the accused, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.