JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this revision petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 29.11.2008 convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short N.I. Act). The petitioner has been sentenced with two years' simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore & Ten Lac) in view of provisions of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner preferred an appeal, however, it was also dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 138 of N.I. Act, the amount of cheque should be towards legal enforceable debt or other liabilities. Referring to para No.2 of the complaint, it is submitted that amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/- was shown due towards sale consideration. The document P-5 ledger account does not conform amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/- to be due. In view of above, basic ingredients of Section 138 of Neotiable Instruments Act is not made out. This is moreso when, the case has checkered history, inasmuch as, one company, namely, Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (for short Company ) was facing litigation before the BFR and winding up petition in Delhi High Court. An agreement was executed between the parties and the Company, which was owned even by Anil Kumar Khetan, who was the Managing Director at the relevant time. The agreement was not disclosing due amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/-, accordingly the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt or liabilities, which is required as per explanation to Section 138 of N.I. Act. In view of the above, the complaint should have been dismissed. 3. It is further stated that even issue of jurisdiction was not taken up by the Courts below. Three cheques in question were issued at Chandigarh Bank, thus mere presentation of those cheques in Alwar Bank of the complainant, jurisdiction was not to the Court at Alwar. 4. It is also stated that power of attorney holder cannot depose for the act of principal. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, power of attorney holder can depose statements to the extent of his acts and not for the acts of principal. In the instant case, there exists three powers of attorney. The third powers of attorney holder is Ashok Chawla, who deposed statement in evidence. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, power of attorney holder can depose statements to the extent of his acts and not for the acts of principal. In the instant case, there exists three powers of attorney. The third powers of attorney holder is Ashok Chawla, who deposed statement in evidence. He was having no knowledge about transactions, rather the person was not even concerned to any of the transaction involved in the present matter. He is a person belonging to electric department of the company. In view of the above and as per Section 66 of the Evidence Act, the documents produced by the complainant should not have been read in evidence. The Court below ignored the aforesaid aspect also. 5. It is lastly urged that even if the agreement executed between the parties is looked into and was basis for Delhi High Court to pass the order in a winding up petition. There were obligations of other party to clear dues towards custom and electricity. There was failure of other party to clear those dues and thus, petitioner was left with no option but to instruct Bank to stop the payment. In view of the agreement, the amount of cheque was not towards legally enforceable debt or liabilities. For all these reasons, the impugned order of the trial Court so as the Appellate Court deserves to be set aside. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though huge amount is due towards other party, i.e., the party to the agreement as they have failed to pay dues towards custom and electricity yet if rights of petitioner are kept alive to enforce the agreement and liberty is given, to show his bonafides, entire payment towards compensation can be paid by the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- has already been deposited with the Court below and remaining amount can be paid to the complainant if aforesaid liberty is given but then the order of simple imprisonment for two years may be set aside looking to the peculiar facts of this case. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner on the side opposite opposed the revision petition. 8. It is stated that amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/- has been admitted as legally enforceable debt or liabilities. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner on the side opposite opposed the revision petition. 8. It is stated that amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/- has been admitted as legally enforceable debt or liabilities. A reference of P-4 has been given where petitioner has admitted his liability for the aforesaid sum and issued three cheques. Even in the cross examination, there exists admission towards debt of the aforesaid amount. The amount aforesaid was payable to the complainant towards sale and ledger at P-5 demonstrates amount equivalent to the amount of the cheque and for that reason only, the petitioner had agreed to pay aforesaid amount while entering into the agreement to purchase shares of the company. The winding up petition was also dropped by the Delhi High Court and property of the company was handed over to the petitioner. 9. Coming to the issue pertaining to part performance of agreement by other party, i.e., payment towards custom and electricity, it is submitted that liability was not taken by the complainant. The petitioner has mixed up two different entities by one. If liability was owned by one entity then cannot be enforced on other. In view of the above, there is not default regarding performance of agreement so far as complainant is concerned. He was only a witness to the document and not part of the agreement. 10. Coming to the issue of jurisdiction, it is submitted that complaint can be maintained at the place where cheque was placed for encashment and not necessarily at the place it was to be encashed. In the instant case, cheque was presented at UCO Bank, Alwar and information of dishonor was received at Alwar, thus complaint was rightly maintained before the Court at Alwar. A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. reported in 1999 (7) SCC 510 has been given. 11. It is further stated that power of attorney holder can depose statement and it is not necessary that principal should be produced in evidence. A reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234 has been given. 11. It is further stated that power of attorney holder can depose statement and it is not necessary that principal should be produced in evidence. A reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234 has been given. It is submitted that power of attorney holder was authorised to make statement for the company and otherwise, his statement was rightly considered and documents were exhibited accordingly. It was in conformity of the provision of Section 66 of the Evidence Act. In view of the above, no case is made out for causing interference in the impugned order. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner is fair enough to accept the Demand Draft (for short DD ) of Rs. 55,00,000/-, which is part of the amount awarded by the Court below towards compensation. The amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- was earlier deposited with the Court below, thus balance remains to be Rs. 55,00,000/-. 13. The D.D. has been accepted, however, prayer is made to enhance the amount of compensation if interference is caused in the sentence for imprisonment of two years'. 14. It is stated that an application has been moved for enhancing the amount of compensation and otherwise, the Court is having ample powers to award compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 15. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised manifold arguments to challenge the order of trial Court so as the Appellate Court. 17. The first issue is in reference to Section 138 of Neotiable Instruments Act indicating that complaint can be maintained if there exists legally enforceable debt or liabilities. For the aforesaid purpose, it would be gainful to quote Section 138 of Neotiable Instruments Act, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference: 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid. either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been, presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 18. The perusal of the provision quoted above and explanation appended to it shows that word debt or liabilities means legally enforceable debt or liabilities. In view of the provision referring to above, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to say that complaint can be maintained if there are legally enforceable debt or liabilities. 19. The question comes as to whether complainant could make out a case for legally enforceable debt or liabilities. 20. In view of the provision referring to above, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to say that complaint can be maintained if there are legally enforceable debt or liabilities. 19. The question comes as to whether complainant could make out a case for legally enforceable debt or liabilities. 20. I find that P - 4 is ledger account showing as to how much amount was due towards sale and it confirmes that Rs. 1,06,82,706/- was due. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that contents of the document was not proved because exhibiting document is not a proof of the contents. For the aforesaid, I have gone through the document at P - 4, i.e., a letter written by the petitioner himself. The perusal of the document P - 4 shows admission of the petitioner owning liability of Rs. 1,08,26,405/-. It was after adjustment of many amount specified in the said document itself. The petitioner has even promise to keep matching amount in the bank account for encashment of cheques. Even if the statement of complainant along with cross examination are looked into, it supports the complainant's case. In view of the above, I find that complainant could make out a case to show legally enforceable debt or liabilities. It is even pursuant to the agreement entered between the parties and order of Delhi High Court dropping winding up petition. 21. It is, no doubt true that agreement contains performances not only by petitioner but by other party also, more specifically, for clearance of amount towards custom and electricity. Serious allegations have been made for non-performance of part of agreement by the other party. The argument of learned counsel for the complainant is for mixing two different legal entities for aforesaid liabilities. I find that stoppage of payment was due to aforesaid reason but then it cannot justify quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of Neotiable Instruments Act but may justify interference in sentence. The issue pertaining to sentence would thus be considered in the later part of this judgment. 22. In view of discussion made above, I find that amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/- was payable to the complainant and accordingly, finding recorded by the trial Court so confirmed by the Appellate Court needs no interference. 23. The issue pertaining to sentence would thus be considered in the later part of this judgment. 22. In view of discussion made above, I find that amount of Rs. 1,08,26,405/- was payable to the complainant and accordingly, finding recorded by the trial Court so confirmed by the Appellate Court needs no interference. 23. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, I find that it is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran (supra), thus needs no discussion. 24. So far as the question regarding power of attorney is concerned, at the time of filing complaint, it was by first power of attorney, which was substituted by second and last was Ashok Chawla, who deposed for complainant. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), power of attorney holder was entitled to depose statement and if read by the Court below, I do not find any illegality as stated. In view of above, I do not find that there exists violation of Section 66 of Evidence Act. In the aforesaid background, I am unable to accept any of the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the background aforesaid and discussion made above, conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. 25. The question now comes regarding sentence. 26. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner with two years' simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 1,10,00,00/-. The aforesaid has been maintained by the Appellate Court. At the time of application for suspension of sentence, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- and accordingly, aforesaid amount was deposited and has been withdrawn by the complainant. To show bonafides of the petitioner, even remaining amount has been given to the complainant in the form of D.D. of Rs. 55,00,000/-, accordingly amount of compensation has been satisfied by the accused. 27. In view of above and taking note of peculiar facts and overlapping litigation so as an agreement, I am of the opinion that interference needs to be caused in the sentence for simple imprisonment of two years' and accordingly, sentence aforesaid is substituted by the period already served by the petitioner. 28. Learned counsel for the complainant prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation due to time gap in payment. 29. 28. Learned counsel for the complainant prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation due to time gap in payment. 29. I find that it is not such a case where plea for enhancement should be accepted, moreso when, revision petition has not been filed by the complainant to challenge the order of trial Court so as the Appellate Court. It is, no doubt true that the Court can pass an order for compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. but I do not find it to be a case of such nature where the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. 30. I find it appropriate to maintain the compensation imposed by the Courts below. Accordingly, the order of the Court below is modified as indicated above and revision petition is in part allowed. 31. It is made clear that disposal of this revision petition or earlier orders will not preclude the petitioner to enforce his rights against party of the agreement if those rights are enforceable. 32. No orders are required to be passed on application looking to the disposal of the revision petition itself.