Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara (for short "the revisional Court") has been challenged by the petitioner whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the order taking cognizance of offence dated 29.4.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short "the trial Court") on a complaint filed by the petitioner-Chandrika (Smt.) through her Power of Attorney Holder Sagar Mal for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act of 1881"), was set aside. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant criminal misc. petition are that a complaint was filed by petitioner-Chandrika (Smt.) through her Power of Attorney Holder Sagar Mal who is her husband, for the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the respondent No. 2 M/s. Handloom House through its proprietor Shri Vijay Kumar Dua before the trial Court. The trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the respondent No. 2 on 29.4.2004 and issued the process. Thereafter an application was filed by the respondent No. 2 for recalling of the order taking cognizance and the same was dismissed by the trial Court and thereafter, the order taking cognizance came to be challenged by the respondent No. 2 by way of a criminal revision before the revisional Court being Criminal Revision Petition No. 77 of 2004. The revisional Court set aside the order of taking cognizance solely on the ground that Section 142 of the Act of 1881 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque According to revisional Court, the complaint was though filed in the name of payee but it was filed through Power of Attorney and payee herself did not appear and filed the complaint and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of revisional Court, the petitioner has filed the instant misc. petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Aggrieved by the order of revisional Court, the petitioner has filed the instant misc. petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement as envisaged under Section 142 of the Act of 1881 to file the complaint is that a complaint should be filed in the name of payee or the holder in due course of the cheque and not that the payee or the holder in due course of cheque should personally appear before the Court and filed the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. M.T.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. Medical Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 182 , in M/s Shankar Finance & Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1017, a decision of Kerala High Court in Hamsa vs. Ibrahim, ILR 1994(1) Kerala 622, in K. Gopalakrishana vs. Karunkarann represented by the Power of Attorney Holder, 2007(2) NIJ 258 (Mad.) (DB), in Aashirwad Enterprises vs. Sambhar Salts Ltd., 1997(3) RCR (Cri.) 221 (Raj.) = RLW 1997(1) Raj. 675, in Ajay Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 Western Law Cases (UC) (Raj.) 229, in Mohil Fibers vs. Shri Saai Agro Industries & Anr., 2007(1) NIJ 451 (MP) and in Muthukaruppan vs. Raghavan, 2007(1) NIJ 68 (Mad.). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has relied on a decision of Single Bench of this Court in Smt. Lalita Hundiya vs. Govind Narayan Khuteta & Anr., 2008(1) RCC 410. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record: 7. Section 142 of the Act of 1881 deals with the cognizance of offences under the Act of 1881, which reads as under :- "142. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record: 7. Section 142 of the Act of 1881 deals with the cognizance of offences under the Act of 1881, which reads as under :- "142. Cognizance of offences.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made one month of the date on which the cause-of-action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138: Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complaint satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. (c) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138." 8. From the plain reading of Section 142(a) of the Act of 1881, it is clear that the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 can be taken upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or as the case they may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. Thus, the complaint has to be in the name of payee or the holder in due course of cheque, Section do not provide that the complaint has to be personally signed presented by the payee or holder in due course cheque. What it requires is the complaint should be in the same of payee or as the case may be, the holder in due course of cheque. In the instant cast, the complaint has been filed in the name of Smt. Chandrika, who is the payee of the cheque. Indisputable, the respondent No. 2 issued the cheque in the name and in favour of Smt. Chandrika wife of Sagar Mal and she is the complainant in the instant case. In the instant cast, the complaint has been filed in the name of Smt. Chandrika, who is the payee of the cheque. Indisputable, the respondent No. 2 issued the cheque in the name and in favour of Smt. Chandrika wife of Sagar Mal and she is the complainant in the instant case. The only question raised by learned counsel for the accused-respondent is that the complaint thought filed in the name of complainant Smt. Chandrika, the payee in whose favour the cheque was issued by the respondent but it has been filed through Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Chandrika, namely Sagar Mal and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. 9. The similar controversy came to be considered by the Kerala High Court in Hamsa vs. Ibrahim (supra). The question came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court was as to whether the power of attorney of the payee has no locus standi to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881? The Court held that merely because Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act does not contain similar provision as in Sections 198 and 199 of the Code, no inference can be drawn that Parliament never intended to allow the complaint to be filed through an agent or power-of-attorney holder of a payee or holder in due course. The question regarding the right of a person to appoint another as his agent has also been considered in the said decision and the Court observed as under:- "In considering the question involved here legal position regarding the right of a person to appoint another as his agent has to be understood at least in a general manner. According to the law of England "every person who is sui juris has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose whatever, and that he can do so when he is exercising a statutory right no less than when he is exercising any other right" (Vide Jackson & Co. vs. Napper, 1986 (35) Ch.D. 162). According to the law of England "every person who is sui juris has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose whatever, and that he can do so when he is exercising a statutory right no less than when he is exercising any other right" (Vide Jackson & Co. vs. Napper, 1986 (35) Ch.D. 162). This was recognized as a common law right Blackburn, J. has stated in Queen vs. Justice of Kent, 1873 (8) Q.B. 305, that "at common law, when a person authorizes another to sign for him, the signature of the person so signing is the person so signing is the signature of the person authorizing it." The Supreme Court has declared in a decision that the law in India is also the same (vide Ravulu Subbarao vs. I.T. Commr., 1956 SCC 604). Venkatarama Ayyar, J. in the said decision has observed that the said rule is subject to certain well-known exception such as, when the act to be performed is annexed to a public office, or to an office involving any fiduciary obligation. "But apart from such exception, the law is well-settled that whatever a person can do himself, he can do through an agent" observed the learned Judge in the said decision. The above can thus be regarded as the legal position regarding the right to appoint an agent." The Court further observed as under :- "Power-of-attorney is the instrument by which a person is authorised to act as the agent of the person granting it (vide Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary", power-of-attorney is described as an authority whereby one is set in the turn, stead, or place of another to act for him." Stone, C.J. has adopted the said definition as effective and acceptable in Ramdeo vs. Lali Natha, AIR 1937 Nag. 65. Section 2 of the Power-of-Attorney Act, 1882 empowers the donee of a power-of-attorney to do anything" in and with his own name and signature" by the authority of the donor of the power. The Section declares that everything so done "shall be as effectual in law as if it had been ............... done by the donee of the power in the name and with the signature ............... of the donor thereof" (Short of words which are not necessary in this context). The Section declares that everything so done "shall be as effectual in law as if it had been ............... done by the donee of the power in the name and with the signature ............... of the donor thereof" (Short of words which are not necessary in this context). In the light of such declaration the legal position is that the power-of-attorney holder can do everything empowered by the donor and all such acts done by the donee shall have legal recognition and acceptance as though such acts were done by the donor himself." The Court further observed as under :- "Making a complaint before a Court is not an act which would fall within the exception envisaged by Venkatarama Ayyar, J. in Ravulu Subba Rao vs. I.T. Commr. (supra). Patanjali Sastri, J. (as he then was) had stated in I.T. Commr. vs. Subba Rao, AIR 1946 (33) Mad. 411, that Section 2, Power-of-Attorney Act cannot override the specific provision or a rule made under a different statute which requires that a particular act should be done by some one "personally". The Bench was considering the effect of adding the word "personally" in Rule 6 of the Income-Tax Rules framed under Section 59 of the Income Tax as per which an application for registration under Section 26-A of the Income Tax Act should have been signed by the partner personally. It was the said decision of the Madras High Court which reached the Supreme Court in Ravulu Subba Rao vs. I.T. Commr. (supra). But the principle enunciated in the said decision has no application to Section 142 of the N.I. Act since there is no requirement in it that the complaint should be made by the payee or holder in due course "personally". Parliament would have advisedly refrained from imposing such a restriction." 10. On these premises, the Kerala High Court held that on dishonour of cheque, a complaint can be filed by power of attorney of holder in due course of the cheque. It was further held that there is nothing in the Act of 1881 to show that the complaint must be filed by holder in due course personally. 11. In M/s M.T.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. M/s Medical Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. & Anr. It was further held that there is nothing in the Act of 1881 to show that the complaint must be filed by holder in due course personally. 11. In M/s M.T.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. M/s Medical Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any special statute prescribes offences and makes any special provision for taking cognizance of such offences under the statute, then the complaint requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence must satisfy the eligibility criterion prescribed by Section 142 is that the complaint under Section 138 must be by the payee or the holder in due course of said cheque. This criterion is satisfied as the complaint is in the name and on behalf of the appellant Company who is the payee of the cheque. 12. In M/s Shankar Finance & Investment vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra), a question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Act signed by a Attorney holder is not maintainable. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s M.M.T.C. Ltd. vs. Medical Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra) and in Vishwa Mitter vs. O.P. Poddar (1983) 4 SCC 701 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides that a complaint under Section 138 can be made by the payee or the holder in due course of the said cheque. The two complaints, in that case, are by the appellant company therein to file the complaint. As such, the order quashing the complaint came to be set aside. In Vishwa Mitter vs. O.P. Poddar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filling a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance. It has also 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 also 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 offences must satisfy the eligibility criterion prescribed by the Statute. It has also 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 offences must satisfy the eligibility criterion prescribed by the Statute. In that case of complaint under Section 138, the only eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 142 of the Act of 1881 is that the complaint must be the payee or the holder in due course and in that case, the criteria is satisfied as the complaint is in the name and on behalf of the appellant company in whose favour the cheque was issued. 13. In M/s Shanker Finance & Investment's case, the payee of the cheque is M/s Shanker Finance & Investments. The complaint was filed by M/s Shanker Finance & Investments, a proprietary concern of Shri Atmakuri Shanker Rao, represented by its Power of Attorney holder Sheri Thamada Satyanarayana. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is, therefore, evident that the complaint is in the name of and on behalf of payee and once the complaint is in the name of payee and is in writing, the requirements of Section 142 are fulfilled. 14. In K. Gopala Krishanan vs. Karunakarann represented by the Power of Attorney Holder (supra), the question came to be considered by the Division Bench of Madras High Court as to whether the complaint filed by power of attorney holder should be signed by payee or holder in due course of cheque or shall be signed by the power of attorney holder on behalf of the complainant. While considering Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, it was held that every person has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose except in cases where the act to be performed is personal in character or is annexed to a public office or an act involving fiduciary obligation. Apart from the above mentioned exceptions, the law is clear that whatever a person can do for himself, he can do it through an agent. In common law, when a person authorises another to sign for him, the signature of the person so signing to be treated as if the person authorising signed the same. Unless the statute otherwise provides, an Application or Petition signed by the person authorised would be in order and valid. In common law, when a person authorises another to sign for him, the signature of the person so signing to be treated as if the person authorising signed the same. Unless the statute otherwise provides, an Application or Petition signed by the person authorised would be in order and valid. Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act makes it clear that Power of Attorney can execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required by the authority of the Donor of the power, and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power. 15. In Aashirwad Enterprises vs. Sambhar Salts Ltd. (supra), while considering the provision of Section 142 of the Act of 1881, this Court held that the word "payee" in Section 142(1) includes such person as is authorised by the payee himself or itself to make the complaint on his behalf. 16. In Ajay Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court held that complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 can be presented by holder of attorney of complainant. 17. In Mohil Fibers vs. Shri Saai Agro Industries & Anr. (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a general Power of Attorney holder can filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act 1881 on behalf of payee or holder in due course of the cheque. 18. In Smt. Lalita Hundiya vs. Govind Narayan Khuteta & Anr. (supra), a complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder. In that case, the trial Court after examining the power of attorney holder took cognizance. That order came to be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition. The revisional Court while allowing the criminal revision, set aside the cognizance order holding that power of attorney holder has to locus to file complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. This Court further held that the complaint was not filed in accordance with the provision of Section 142(a) of the Act of 1881 and the order of the trial Court quashing of the complaint was affirmed. This Court further held that the complaint was not filed in accordance with the provision of Section 142(a) of the Act of 1881 and the order of the trial Court quashing of the complaint was affirmed. The decision relied on by learned counsel for the respondent, in my view, do not lead the correct law in view of the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove and is of no help of the respondent. 19. Keeping in view the decisions referred hereinabove and the facts of the instance case, in my view, the revisional Court fell in error in setting aside the order taking cognizance and issuing process. In the instant case, indisputably, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 came to be filed in the name and on behalf of Smt. Chandrika, the payee of the cheque through her husband the Power of Attorney Holder and therefore, the complaint was proper and valid and the learned trial Court was justified in taking the cognizance of offence on such complaint. In the circumstances, therefore, the order of revisional Court suffers from patent error and deserves to be set aside. 20. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 10.2.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision Petition No. 77 of 2004 is hereby set aside and that of the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara dated 29.4.2009 is restored. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.8.2009 without any fresh notice and the trial Court shall proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law.