Court: A general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party [Read Judgment]

A Delhi court in, JAI SINGH RAJIAN VS. SEEMA, reiterated the findings of SC  in A.C. Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr, that said, “When the power of   attorney   holder   of   the   complainant   does   not   have a piece of personal knowledge about the transactions then he cannot be examined.”

Facts

Complainant alleges that he lent Rs. 3 lac to daughter in law by way of cheque. The accused repaid Rs. 90,000 and for remaining, she gave a cheque dated 17.12.2012 and the same got dishonored. Notice was moved to accuse her of moving an application u/s 145(2). It was alleged by the accused that for her visa, her in-laws asked her to make two bank accounts and thus she was supposed to deposit lacs of rupees. She claimed that the complainant out of his own volition deposited Rs. 3,00,000/­ in her account, which today he is falsely terming to be a “loan” and as she was leaving for Canada she was compelled to leave a blank signed cheque and thereafter relations turned sour and the complainant malafidely produced those cheques. Prior to this the accused had filed multiple FIRs against the complainant regarding the same issue.

Evidence

The prosecution examined attorney holder and bank officials of SBI and Indian Overseas Bank.

The defence examined various court officials to prove that she had filed various FIRs against the in-laws regarding the withholdment of cheques.

Findings

Under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act- two mandatory presumptions i.e passing of consideration in the transfer of NI and the cheque is issued in discharge of legal liability. Thus, it is upon the accused to rebut the presumptions and produce relevant evidence.

The court perused the evidence by the accused and acknowledged the fact that the litigations by the accused were taken up prior to the institution of the present complaint case. The court noted that in the reply/written statement while all the allegations made by the accused have been controverted by the complainant and his wife, no counterclaim vis a vis lending any loan to her has been made therein. Secondly, it is unlikely that since there was bad blood between them, the accused would issue a cheque in their favor. The court said, “The present case rather appears to be a counter­blast to the cases already filed by the accused.”

The court also said that “A general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party.” SC in A.C. Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr, was of the similar view provided that he does not have knowledge about the transaction. In this case, in one of the evidence, the complainant examined the attorney holder and the court said that his testimony is hearsay as there was the absence of knowledge.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com