“As noticed hereinabove, though Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani relates to powers of power-ofattorney holder under CPC but it was concluded therein that a plaint by a power-ofattorney holder on behalf of the original plaintiff is maintainable provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction in question. In a way, It is an exception to a wellsettled position that criminal law can be put in motion by anyone (vide Vishwa Mitter) and under the statute, one stranger to transaction in question, namely, legal heir, etc, can also carry forward the pending criminal complaint or initiate the criminal action if the original complainant dies (vide Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra).Keeping in mind various situations like inability as a result of sickness, old age or death or staying abroad of the payee or holder in due course to appear and depose before the court in order to prove the complaint, it is permissible for the powerof-attorney holder or for the legal representative(s) to file a complaint and/or continue with the pending criminal complaint for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course. However, it is expected that such power-of-attorney holder or legal representative(s) should have knowledge about the transaction in question so as to be able to bring on record the truth of the grievance/offence, otherwise, no criminal justice could be achieved in case payee or holder in due course, is unable to sign, appear or depose as complainant due to abovequoted reasons, Keeping these aspects in mind, in M.M.T.C., this Court had taken the view that if complaint is filed for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course, that is good enough compliance with Section 142 of the NI Act”
