ORDER : This petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order of return dated 26.10.2015 passed in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam to number the same and to pass orders on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-AH-0499, belonging to the petitioner's company, namely, Shanthi Transport Corporation, while proceeding towards Rajapalaym from Madurai, colluded with a two wheeler, which resulted in attacking the bus driver with stone and bricks and also broke the rear glass of the bus and TV sets. The damage caused to the bus is Rs.75,000/-. 2.1. It is submitted that the bus driver lodged a complaint, pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.234 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 336 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 149 IPC has been registered and the bus was also confiscated in P.R.No.445 of 2013. The respondent police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet and the same is pending in PRC No.445 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalm. 2.2. It is also submitted that the owner of the vehicle/petitioner, by a General Power of Attorney, authorized her Manager Baskaran to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for interim custody of the vehicle and the Power Agent also filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the bus and the same was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 18.11.2013 in Cr.M.P.No.7511 of 2013 with the condition of deposit of original RC book and Rs.20 lakhs cash deposit. Now, the petitioner is in interim custody of the petitioner company. 2.3. It is stated in the affidavit that since the Stage Carriage Permit, is getting expired on 01.01.2016, the original RC book, which was deposited before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam as a pre-condition for interim custody of the bus, is mandatory and the petition for interim custody of RC book was returned the petitioner on the ground that the authorized power agent cannot file petition before the Criminal Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. To decide the issue, this Court feels that it is relevant to refer to the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. To decide the issue, this Court feels that it is relevant to refer to the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another vs. Shri G. Kamalakar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 630 , while dealing with the NI Act, has observed that filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of NI Act through Power of Attorney is perfectly legal, provided such power of attorney or legal representative should have the knowledge about the transaction in question. 4. This Court also in D. Sornam vs. State of Madras Rep. by Secretary, Madras, reported in 1969 MLJ 207 and in Thayarammal vs. Pitty Kuppuswamy Naidu, reported in 1937 MLJ 552 has authorized the Power Agent to file petition in that capacity. I also had an occasion to consider whether a Power of Attorney is entitled to represent the matrimonial case, wherein it has been held as under: “20. Absolutely, the role of the Power of Attorney to assist the principal, who will be not in a position to appear in person to prosecute the proceedings before the Court, acquires significance for consideration. On analyzing the rulings on this issue, we gather and sum up the following regarding the role of the Power of Attorney: (i) Power of Attorney 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 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 Appeal as a witness on behalf of the principal in the capacity of the principle. (ii) The Power of Attorney holder does not have the personal knowledge of the matter of the Appellants and therefore he can neither depose on his personal knowledge nor can he be cross-examined on those facts which are exclusively to the personal knowledge of the principal. (iii) In the Family matters, it is not possible for the spouse to engage a power and act on his/her behalf to give evidence before the Family Court which she/he alone has personal knowledge. (iii) In the Family matters, it is not possible for the spouse to engage a power and act on his/her behalf to give evidence before the Family Court which she/he alone has personal knowledge. (iv) There is no legal impediment under the Family Courts Act, for a Power of Attorney to appear on behalf of the Principal and the only legal embargo is that the recognised agent should not be a legal practitioner. Any person, not being a legal practitioner, can be nominated as an agent under Order 3, Rule 2, C.P.C., to prosecute or defend the parties and until the Family Court passes any specific order, directing appearance of the party, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The persons, who are exempted from the term 'legal practitioner' are the Parents, brothers and sisters. Even then for deposing the facts that are within the personal knowledge of the principal, they should refrain themselves; but the principal should appear before the Court and depose. (v) Under Section 13-B of the Act, a Petition for dissolution of marriage by a Decree of Divorce by mutual consent, shall be presented by the parties to the marriage and not through the Power of Attorney since they should satisfy the Court that as on the date of presentation of the case, they had not been living together as Husband and Wife for more than one year, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed for the dissolution. (vi) The endeavor of the Court should be as far as possible to sustain and nurture the institution of marriage. (vi) The endeavor of the Court should be as far as possible to sustain and nurture the institution of marriage. Section 9 of the Family Courts Act specifically envisages that in every Suit or proceedings, endeavor shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with nature and circumstances of the case to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at settlement in respect of the subject matter of the Suit or proceedings and thus, the personal appearance or presence of the parties concerned becomes inevitable and necessary at any rate from the stage of hearing after the appearance of the other side to the proceedings and the efforts contemplated to be made by the Family Court under the statute cannot be effectively carried out through a recognised agent or Power of Attorney of the party and having regard to the sensitive nature, personal feelings and behavioral attitudes to be assessed by the Court in carrying out the mandate contained in Section 9 of the Family Courts Act. Personal appearance, though not initially required, becomes absolutely necessary after the appearance of the Respondent to the proceedings. Therefore, the parties should make personal appearance before the Court as and when so stipulated or directed or indicated by the Family Court.” 5. Recently, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that Power of Attorney is not entitled to address on behalf of his principal. However, it is open to him to engage a counsel of his choice. The right conferred on a person holding the power of attorney to appear before the Court and plead on behalf of his principal in a representative capacity has nothing to do with the right to practice in Court. There is a clear distinction between “appear” and “practice” and the legislature has consciously used the word “appear” in Section 32 of the Advocates Act and Section 33 of the Act used the word “practice” which would include only acting and pleading. 6. There is a clear distinction between “appear” and “practice” and the legislature has consciously used the word “appear” in Section 32 of the Advocates Act and Section 33 of the Act used the word “practice” which would include only acting and pleading. 6. From the above, it is clear that the Power of Attorney is entitled to appear on behalf of the Principal, present documents and produce materials before the Court, but neither the Power Agent nor Private Pleader can argue the case before the Court, as there is a clear distinction between appear and practice and the practice, which amounts to address the argument before the Court, is not permissible in law. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the return made by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, vide order dated 26.10.2015 is not correct, as the Power Agent is entitled to file petition before the Court, but he is not entitled to argue the case, instead he can engage a lawyer of his choice to plead the case. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order of return dated 26.10.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 is set aside. The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam is directed to number the same, if there are no legal impediments and to pass orders on merits. It is made clear that only Advocates as per the provisions of the Advocate Act can represent the case before the Court, unless the said person is a party-in-person, as party-in-person is different from Power Agent and Private Pleader.