Judgment : Per K. N. BASHA, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode in CC No. 31 of 1994 dated 11.5.2000 acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused without assigning any valid reasons. It is submitted that the appellant / complainant has complied with all the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and even the legally enforceable liability on the part of the accused has also been proved. But the learned Magistrate simply ignored all those materials in favour of the complainant, the appellant herein and acquitted the accused. 3. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the power of Attorney executed in favour of P.W.1 by the propretrix is not a valid one. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Magistrate has also committed error of law in placing reliance on the disputed cheque Ex.P.1 bearing No. 765539 dated 31.7.93 and held that the same is doubtful on the ground that the cheque bearing No. 765538 has been issued for payment towards the supplies made under Bill No. 20. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Magistrate has proceeded on the wrong basis that the proprietor has failed to examine himself on behalf of the complainant since the complaint had been filed by the Power of Attorney. 4. Per contraMr. K. Kuppusamy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent ?A1 contended that there isno illegality or infirmity in the order of the acquittal and the learned Magistrate assigned valid reasons. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly held that the complaint preferred by the Power of Attorney of Proprietrix concern is not maintainable. It is contended by the learned counsel that the complaint proprietary concern is not a partnership firm or a company and as such section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not applicable to the instant case. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 1998 (3) Crimes 337 . It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 1998 (3) Crimes 337 . Learned counsel also contended that even the said Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Manager of Proprietary concern, is not properly executed in accordance with law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel that the learned Magistrate has also rightly held that the respondent rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by placing reliance on the questions raised in the cross examination of P.W.1. A perusal of the materials available on record clearly shows that Ex.P.1 cheque dated 31.7.93 bearing serial number 765539 was issued in respect of bill No. 13 which is the disputed cheque in this case and whereas towards the subsequent bill No.20, a cheque issued bearing No. 765538 dated 31.3.93 was already realised and such inconsistency raises doubt and probablises the defence version. It is also contended that the perusal of the Bill No. 13 shows the names of Senthil Kumar and Co. and also Pon Kaliamman Oil Mills and therefore it is doubtful whether the bill is in relation to Senthil Kumar and Co. or Pon Kaliamman Oil Mills and as such there is a serious doubt about the supply of materials to Senthil Kumar and Co on credit basis and therefore learned Magistrate rightly held that the complainant has not been proved and the cheque was not issued for legally enforceable hability and the accused has rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further stated that even the perusal of Ex.P.1 the disputed cheque in this case clearly shows that there were variations in respect of signature and the contents of the cheque and as such the possibility of filling up the blank cheque cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no ground made out by the appellant/complainant to interfere with the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Mr. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no ground made out by the appellant/complainant to interfere with the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Mr. N. Duraisamy learned counsel appearing for R2 and R3 while reiterating the contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing for R1 also contended that R2 and R3 have also rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the defence of R2 is probablised by the materials available on record to the effect that the blank cheques issued by R2 was misused in view of the materials available ion record viz. that there were variations in the signature of R2 and the contents of the cheque in dispute Ex.P.1 Further the complainant has also not proved the legally enforceable liability. 6. Learned counsel further contended that though the complainant implicated both R2 and R3 apart from R1 the company there is absolutely no specific averment in respect of any particular accused and the averments contained in the complaint simply read only mentioning as accused and not mentioning the specific accused number 1, 2 or 3. It is also submitted that even in the evidence there is no specific mentioning about the role played by the each of the accused particularly R2 and R3 and only there are some vague and general allegations contained in the deposition of P.W.1, who has been examined on behalf of the complainant. 7. Learned counsel would further contend that the cheque itself was returned on the ground of stop payment which itself makes it crystal clear that there is absolutely no legally enforceable liability by all the accused particularly by R2 and R3. It is contended by the learned counsel that all these infirmities were rightly considered by the learned Magistrate and as such there is no illegality by the order passed by the Magistrate. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned order of acquittal and other materials available on record including the deposition of the complainant in this case. 9. At the outset, it is to be stated that the learned Magistrate has given clear and categorical reasons for acquitting the accused. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned order of acquittal and other materials available on record including the deposition of the complainant in this case. 9. At the outset, it is to be stated that the learned Magistrate has given clear and categorical reasons for acquitting the accused. It is also seen that the learned Magistrate has given a finding to the effect that R2, in this case, who is said to have issued the disputed cheque Ex.P.1 in favour of complainant / appellant herein has also rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate has assigned the following reasons for acquitting the accused. (i) The complaint preferred by the proprietary concern is not maintainable as the proprietor or propretrix of the concern has not preferred the complaint specifically. (ii) The Power of Attorney executed by the proprietrix Ex. P 8 is invalid as the same was not properly executed. (iii) P.W.1 accepted the maintenance of accounts in respect of the business transaction and in the bill under Ex.P. 9 the signatures of R2 and R3 wee not obtained and further the bill contains the names of both Selvakumar and Co and Pon Kaliamman Oil Mills. But the Pon Kaliamman Oil Mills has not been implicated as one of the accused in this case and as such it is doubtful whether the supply of materials were made on credit by the complainant only to Selvakumar and Co. (iv) The accused rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by placing reliance on the above said ground as well as the variations of the signature and the contents found in Ex.P.1 cheque and also by placing reliance on the issuance of the cheque bearing No. 765538 dated 31.3.1993 in respect of bill No. 20 and whereas the present version of the complaint is that the disputed cheque Ex.P.1 bearing No. 765539 dated 31.7.1993 to the corresponding bill No. 13 raises serious doubt about the legally enforceable liability on the part of the accused herein. 10. 10. This court is of the considered view that the above said reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate are based on the materials available on record through the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the documents available on record viz., Ex.P.1 cheque, Ex.P.8 power of Attorney document executed in favour of P.W.1 by the proprietrix and Ex.P.9 the bill book in the year 1992 of the complainant. It cannot be stated from the above said reasons that the Magistrate has overlooked or ignored the materials available on record in favour of the complaint. The perusal of the above said materials available on record by this Court also clearly shows that the learned Magistrate has given valid reasons. It is also relevant to be noted that one of the ground assigned by the learned Magistrate is in respect of the maintainability of the complaint, preferred by the proprietary concern. It is true that the complaint is not maintainable if the same is preferred by the proprietary concern. But in this case the perusal of the complaint shows that the complaint was preferred by the proprietrix concern represented by its Power of Attorney for its Proprietrix P. Rathinam wife of Periasamy and as such it can not be stated that the complaint was preferred only by the proprietrix concern, but the same was not represented by the proprietrix. 11. Therefore this court is of the considered view that the said ground for acquitting the accused is unsustainable. But so far as the other reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate are concerned they are certainly sustainable in law. This Court is also constrained to state that as a matter of fact the Power of Attorney document in this case not executed properly in accordance with law. It is seen that the power of attorney document was attested by a notary public and the same is not a registered document. Though registration is not required for execution of the Power of Attorney, but the fact remains that there are certain averments and infirmities in the Power of Attorney document Ex.P.8 executed by the proprietrix viz, the complainant herein. Though registration is not required for execution of the Power of Attorney, but the fact remains that there are certain averments and infirmities in the Power of Attorney document Ex.P.8 executed by the proprietrix viz, the complainant herein. It is seen that the Power of attorney document was prepared on 25.7.1993 and the attestation was made only no 29.7.93 by the Power of Attorney and even the proprietrix has not been put into the evidence box and deposed that she has executed such power of attorney in favour of her agent namely Mr. Karthigeyan herein. Therefore, in view of the infirmity and illegality of non execution of the Power of Attorney in accordance with law, this Court is of the considered view that even in the very complaint is not maintainable in law. 12. As far as other reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate are concerned as already stated those reasons are based on materials available on record and it can not be stated that those reasons are contrary to the materials or facts of the case. It is true that the perusal of the bills including the disputed bill No. 13 in respect of the cheque Ex.P.1 has been issued in the name of Senthilkumar & Co as well as Pon Kaliamman Oil Mills and therefore it cannot be definitely claimed by the complainant that the supplies were made by the complaint to the accused company alone and not to Pon Kaliamman Oil Mills and the learned Magistrate has also rightly held that the realisation of the amount in respect of bill No. 20 which was issued by A2 viz. R2 in this case, bearing Cheque No. 765538 dated 31.3.93 but the disputed cheque Ex.P.1 contains the date 31.7.1993 bearing S.No. 765539 for the Bill No. 13 raises serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.P.1 the disputed cheque involved in this case to the effect that the same was issued by A2 towards the legally enforceable liability. It is also seen as rightly held by the learned Magistrate that there are variations in respect of signatures of A2 as well as particulars contained in the cheque Ex.P.1 and this Court is also of the considered view that the possibility of filling up of blank cheque and misusing the same could not be ruled out. It is also seen as rightly held by the learned Magistrate that there are variations in respect of signatures of A2 as well as particulars contained in the cheque Ex.P.1 and this Court is also of the considered view that the possibility of filling up of blank cheque and misusing the same could not be ruled out. Therefore, in view of these factors this court has also no hesitation to come to the conclusion that A2 who is said to have issued the cheque Ex.P.1 in this case has rebutted the presumption contemplated u/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act not only by preponderance of probabilities but also by placing reliance on certain admitted materials available on record. 13. In view of the above said reasons there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence the Order of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 14. Before parting with this appeal this Court has to place it on record the commendable services rendered by Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appeared as legal aid counsel and argued the matter vehemently and taken the court through the materials available on record thoroughly. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned legal aid counsel is entitled to receive the remuneration of Rs. 3,000/-from the Tamil Nadu Legal Aid Services Authority, Chennai.