K RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C.No.2188 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, filed Criminal Petition No.2332 of 2002 to quash the proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), on the ground that the complaint against him, presented by the General Power of Attorney of the payee of the cheque issued by him, which was dishonoured, is not maintainable in view of S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta\ When the said petition came up for hearing before one of us (C.Y.Somayajulu, J.), since Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, and Sec. 183 of Contract Act, 1872, recognizing the principle QUI FACIT PER ALIUM FACIT PER SE were not considered while rendering the said decision, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the ratio in that decision in view of those provisions, and directed the Registry to post the case before an appropriate bench after obtaining orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred the case to a full bench for its decision. That is how this case came before us.

(2.) The question to be answered by this Full Bench is whether power of attorney of a payee or a holder in due course of a dishonoured cheque can institute a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, on behalf of the payee or the holder in due course of the dishonoured cheque.

(3.) At our request, Sri T. Balireddy, Senior Advocate readily accepted to act as Amicus Curiae. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by him.