Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) The petitioner herein challenges the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in connection with Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2012, thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta.
(2.) Although in the revisional application the petitioner has taken all the grounds including veracity of the statement of the witnesses and documents, but in course of argument the learned Counsel focused only on point of law i.e. regarding the acceptability of the complaint itself, in view of the definition 'payee'. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly relied on the decision (MILIND SHRIPAD CHANDURKAR Vs. KALIM M. KHAN AND ANOTHER, 2011 4 SCC 275) and argued where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed by; (i) the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the 'payee'; (ii) the proprietary concern, describing itself as the sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under the power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. The said decision speaks that it shall not be permissible for an attorney holder to file the complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. He can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contended that in this case the complainant himself has not been examined and that there is no authorization on behalf of the complainant to the power of attorney holder to file the petition of complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.;