ORDER : 1. Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Leave granted. Interpretation and/or application of Section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ("NI Act") is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.8.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Several cheques on different dates were issued by the appellant herein which were dishonoured. The complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney on or about 28.11.1997, in favour of one Smt. Doreen Shaikh. She filed complaint petitions in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai. The complaint petitions were filed in the name of the respective payees of the cheques. She also filed affidavits in support of the averments made in the said complaint petitions. Cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was taken against the appellant. Summons were issued. 3. Questioning the order issuing summons by the learned magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant herein filed criminal application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, inter alia contending that the complaint petitions filed by the Power of Attorney Holder was not maintainable and relying thereupon or on the basis thereof the learned magistrate could not have issued summons. The said contention has been negatived by the High Court in its impugned judgment. A.C. Narayanan v State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 803 of 2002. D/d. 12.08.2005 (Bom.). 4. In the aforementioned premises interpretation of Section 142 (a) of the NI Act comes up for consideration before us. We may notice that in M.M.T.C. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr., [ 2002 (1) SCC 234 ], a Division Bench of this Court has opined : "11. This Court has, as far back as, in the case of Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar, (196 : 1983 4 SCC 701 ) held that it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance. It has been held that no court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint. It has been held that no court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint. It has been held that if any special statute prescribes offences and makes any special provision for taking cognizance of such offences under the statute, then the complainant requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence must satisfy the eligibility criterion prescribed by the statute. In the present case, the only eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 142 is that the complaint must be by the payee or the holder in due course. This criteria is satisfied as the complaint is in the name and on behalf of the appellant Company." 5. However, in a later judgment in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors. [ 2005 (2) SCC 217 ], albeit in a different context, another Division Bench of this Court overruled the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pradeep Mohanbay v. Minguel Carlos Dias [2000 (1) Bom. L.R. 908], inter alia opining as follows : "13. Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC empowers the holder of power of attorney to `act' on behalf of the principal. In our view the word `acts' employed in Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC confines only to in respect of `acts' done by the power-of-attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term `acts' would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some `acts' in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter of which only the principal is entitled to be cross-examined." "17. On the question of power of attorney, the High Courts have divergent views. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, (1986 2 WLN 713 (Raj.) it was held that a general power-or-attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, (1986 2 WLN 713 (Raj.) it was held that a general power-or-attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in the witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power-of-attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff." "20. However, in the case of Humberto Luis v. Floriano Armado Luis (2002 2 Bom. CR 754) on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in the present case, the High Court took a dissenting view and held that the provisions contained in Order 3 Rule 2 CPC cannot be construed to disentitle the power-of-attorney holder to depose on behalf of his principal. The High Court further held that the word `act' appearing in Order 3 Rule 2 CPC takes within its sweep `depose'. We are unable to agree with this view taken by the Bombay High Court in Floriano Armando." 6. It is not in dispute that there is a conflict of opinion on this issue amongst various High Courts, including the decision of Bombay High Court in Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali v. Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr., [2005(2) Mah. L.J. 1003] on the one hand and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.P. Sampathy v. Manju Gupta and Anr., (2002 Crl.L.J. 2621), on the other. One of the questions which would arise for consideration is as to whether the eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 142(a) of the NI Act would stand satisfied if the complaint petition itself is filed in the name of the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque and/or whether a complaint petition has to be presented before the Court by the payee or the holder of the cheque himself. 7. Another issue which would arise for consideration is as to whether the payee must examine himself in support of the complaint petition keeping in view the insertion of Section 145 of the said Act (Act No. 55 of 2002). 8. 7. Another issue which would arise for consideration is as to whether the payee must examine himself in support of the complaint petition keeping in view the insertion of Section 145 of the said Act (Act No. 55 of 2002). 8. In our opinion, in view of difference of opinion amongst various High Courts as also the decisions of this Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), particularly in view of the fact that in the later case the earlier one was not noticed, an authoritative pronouncement is necessary to be given in this regard. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter should be considered by a larger Bench. Let the records be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench. Liberty to mention.