Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr., 2026

The complaint had been instituted through the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant.

The petitioner contended that the prosecution was legally unsustainable because the power of attorney holder had not specifically pleaded in the complaint that she possessed direct personal knowledge regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused.

It was argued that in the absence of such pleadings, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence or issued summons to the accused.

The petitioner relied upon several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Naresh Potteries v. M/s. Aarti Industries and Another.

The Court observed that the cited judgment was distinguishable because, in that case, the challenge to the Magistrate’s order was raised immediately, whereas in the present case the objection was raised only at the revision stage.

The High Court noted that although the complaint was filed through a power of attorney holder, the complainant himself had appeared before the Trial Court and deposed regarding the transaction.

The Court also observed that the petitioner never challenged the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance before commencement of trial.

The Court examined whether any failure of justice had occurred due to the complaint being instituted through the power of attorney holder.

It was further noted that the petitioner failed to avail appropriate legal remedies at an earlier stage to challenge the order taking cognizance.

Consequently, the Court considered whether interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts was warranted.

The Kerala High Court held that objections regarding the competence of a Power of Attorney Holder to institute a complaint cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time during revision proceedings if not raised earlier.

The Court relied upon Section 465 Cr.P.C. and observed that findings of conviction and sentence cannot be reversed unless there is a demonstrated failure of justice.

The Bench noted that the petitioner had not challenged the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance before commencement of the trial.

The Court emphasized that the complainant himself had appeared before the Trial Court and provided evidence regarding the disputed transaction.

The High Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Naresh Potteries v. M/s. Aarti Industries and Another, holding that the facts of the present case were materially different.

The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to utilize appropriate legal remedies at the earlier stage of proceedings.

The Bench held that no prejudice or failure of justice had been caused to the petitioner merely because the complaint was instituted through the power of attorney holder.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction passed by the lower courts.

However, with respect to sentencing, the Court modified the punishment from six months’ imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

The direction regarding payment of compensation was left unaltered.

Accordingly, the revision petition was disposed of.

The judgment reinforces the procedural principle that objections must be raised at the earliest possible stage in criminal proceedings.

The Court emphasized the importance of Section 465 Cr.P.C., which protects convictions from being reversed on mere procedural irregularities unless actual prejudice or failure of justice is established.

The ruling clarifies that technical objections relating to institution of complaints through Power of Attorney Holders cannot be casually entertained at the revision stage.

The decision highlights judicial reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is substantial illegality or miscarriage of justice.

The Court adopted a pragmatic approach by considering that the complainant himself had later entered the witness box and deposed regarding the transaction.

The judgment strengthens procedural discipline in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 NI Act.

The ruling also reflects the principle that criminal revision jurisdiction is limited and cannot be converted into a fresh appellate scrutiny.

By modifying the sentence while maintaining conviction, the Court balanced punitive and compensatory objectives of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The judgment may serve as a precedent discouraging delayed procedural objections aimed solely at prolonging litigation.

Overall, the decision promotes procedural fairness while preventing abuse of technicalities in cheque dishonour prosecutions.