Sec.138 N.I.Act - Power of attorney holder - scope & consideration of his evidence= a power of attorney holder is not a total substitute for his principal. He may depose about the acts which he has done and the facts which are to his knowledge. However, he cannot depose for the principal in support of the facts which are to the personal knowledge of principal alone. In such an instance the principal alone has to be examined. Now, in the instant case, the complaint was filed by the complainant represented by his SPA and complaint was signed by the complainant. Both the complainant and his SPA gave their sworn statements. The trial Court in its docket order dated 02.02.2005 permitted SPA to proceed with the case on behalf of complainant. Then, Ex.P1 would show that complainant authorised his SPA holder to prosecute the complaint and also to make statements on oath before any Court. Thus, PW1 authorised to give evidence also on behalf of complainant. The evidence of PW1 would show that he is none other than the son of complainants brother and he is having personal knowledge regarding business transactions with accused. He deposed that he sent cement bags on different occasions to the accused and he deposited the cheques issued by the accused in bank. Thus, when the evidence of PW1 is perused, besides being SPA, he is having personal knowledge on the facts concerning to this case. Accused has not brought on record any facts which are said to be in the exclusive knowledge of the complainant to draw an adverse inference for his non-examination. Therefore, the trial Courts observation in this regard cannot be approved.-2015 A.P.(2015) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.138 N.I.Act - Power of attorney holder - scope & consideration of his evidence=
a power of attorney holder is not a total
substitute for his principal. He may depose about the acts which he has done
and the facts which are to his knowledge. However, he cannot depose for the
principal in support of the facts which are to the personal knowledge of
principal alone. In such an instance the principal alone has to be examined.
Now, in the instant case, the complaint was filed by the complainant
represented by his SPA and complaint was signed by the complainant. Both  
the complainant and his SPA gave their sworn statements.  The trial Court in
its docket order dated 02.02.2005 permitted SPA to proceed with the case on
behalf of complainant. Then, Ex.P1 would show that complainant authorised
his SPA holder to prosecute the complaint and also to make statements on 
oath before any Court. Thus, PW1 authorised to give evidence also on behalf
of complainant. The evidence of PW1 would show that he is none other than
the son of complainants brother and he is having personal knowledge
regarding business transactions with accused. He deposed that he sent cement 
bags on different occasions to the accused and he deposited the cheques
issued by the accused in bank. Thus, when the evidence of PW1 is perused, 
besides being SPA, he is having personal knowledge on the facts concerning
to this case. Accused has not brought on record any facts which are said to be
in the exclusive knowledge of the complainant to draw an adverse inference
for his non-examination. Therefore, the trial Courts observation in this
regard cannot be approved.-2015 A.P.(2015) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS