ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal, notice for final disposal was issued considering that trial Court had dismissed the complaint only on the questions of law. 2. Heard Learned Advocate S. I. Khan for appellant. None appears for respondent, though served. 3. The findings leading to dismissal are quoted below. “5........................................... Admittedly, in view of admission of the accused about her signature on cheque Exh.29 as per section 139 of N. I. Act, burden lies on accused to prove that cheque was not drawn for discharge of legal liability, but it was given only as a security. {quoted from page 14 of Criminal Appeal Paper Book} 9. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Ranmjitha Baklasubramanian and another Vrs. Shanthi Group and other 2007 (3) Civil LJ 148, I hold that the present complaint filed by the Power of Attorney of complainant has no authority to file the complainant or sign the complainant on behalf or complainant Mr. Heena Rupani or a firm Heena Finance and Leasing. Accordingly, I have answered point no.1 in negative. [Quoted from page 16 of Criminal Appeal Paper Book} 13. In the above circumstances, I hold that the accused has brought sufficient and cogent evidence on record to show that the cheque exh.29 bearing No.725979 was blank and it was delivered to the complainant only as a security. Accordingly, I have answered point no.2 in affirmative.. {Quoted from page 17 & 18 of Criminal Appeal Paper Book} 4. With the above findings, the complaint has been dismissed. 5. In so far as the capacity of a power of attorney holder is concerned, this Court has already rendered a detailed Judgment in case of Mamtadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs. Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal 2005(2) Mh. L. J., Page 1003, and laid down the guidelines as to eventualities where the complaint and evidence by Power of attorney shall be permissible and imperative. In view of this dismissal of complaint on the ground that it is signed, and sought to be proved by power of attorney is not proper. The original or certified copy of power of attorney as admissible in evidence, however, needs to be produced. 6. In view of this dismissal of complaint on the ground that it is signed, and sought to be proved by power of attorney is not proper. The original or certified copy of power of attorney as admissible in evidence, however, needs to be produced. 6. In so far as the second point is concerned namely cheques being given as security is concerned, this point too has gained finality in view of reported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 2002(4) Mh. L. J. Page 1 ICDS Ltd., Vs. Beena Shabeer and another. Therefore, it would be erroneous to hold that proceedings under Section 138 would not lie if cheque is issued towards liability as a guarantor or by way of security. 7. Thus, both grounds, on which the complaint is dismissed, are erroneous. 8. On these grounds, Judgment impugned deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 9. The complaint case No.8935/2005 is remanded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court Negotiable Instruments Act) Nagpur, for hearing and disposal according to law. 10. In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs.