JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellant herein happens to be the original complainant in Case No. 1404/S/1997. The accused was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai vide Judgment and Order dated 19/6/1998 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the original complainant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal has filed the application seeking leave to appeal. The leave was granted. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: That the complaint in the present case was filed through the power of attorney holder of the original complainant i.e. Ram Dhari Singh. The said power of attorney holder was employed with the original complainant. The verification statement was also signed by the holder of the power of attorney. Process was issued on the basis of the said verification. 3. At the trial, the power of attorney holder was not examined. P.W. 1 i.e. the appellant was examined. The limited question is as to whether the very initiation of proceedings filed by Ram Dhari Singh as power of attorney holder of P.W. 1 was proved at the trial. The answer is in the negative. The learned Magistrate has observed as follows : "16. Now about maintainability. The learned advocate for the accused submitted that this complaint is not maintainable since power of attorney is not brought on record it is not read in evidence. The learned advocate for the complainant in his written arguments has said that power of attorney is annexed to the complaint and the record shows that it had been verified. All the documents are expected to be verified before issuing the process but that does not mean that documents are proved for the purpose of trial. All the documents on which complainant relies are required to be tendered in the court and they are required to be duly proved. Here in this case Ramdhari might have left the job of the complainant but Power of attorney could be still with the complainant which he could have tendered but he did not tender in evidence. Even if it is presumed that employee took power of attorney which was issued in his favour with him still then he could have had secondary evidence with the copy which was available with him but he did not bothered to do that too. Even if it is presumed that employee took power of attorney which was issued in his favour with him still then he could have had secondary evidence with the copy which was available with him but he did not bothered to do that too. It is only after this point was touched by the accused, it was relied that copy is annexed. If copy is annexed, then copy of cheque is also annexed, copy of memo of the bank is also annexed, copy of notice is also annexed but now these documents are required to be proved. There are different standards of proving it, different standards of proceeding with it and at the time of issuing process court has placed reliance on what is stated by the complainant or avernments made in the complaint and the documents placed before the court but they are always subject to challenge during the course of trial and therefore, they are required to be tendered in evidence. Now the position on record is that the person who presented the complaint is not examined. The person who presented that complaint his authority is also not on record. Under the circumstances what should be the position. The position after giving due consideration to it particularly considering all other points standing in favour of complainant and from the conduct of accused which has been noticed during the trial still then one has to say that this is a major lacuna to which I see no answer to overcome it. In the absence of power of attorney being placed in court one must say that there is no complaint as such and therefore it will have to be observed that complaint is not maintainable. I can understand a complaint can be filed by power of attorney holder of a payee of cheque but then that power of attorney has to be proved in the court of law at the time trial. In absence of it, complaint lacks in tenability and I therefore record my finding on this point in negative." 4. The learned Judge has recorded sound and justifiable reasons to acquit the accused. There is no miscarriage of justice. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate do not deserve to be interfered with and hence, the appeal being sans merits deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned Judge has recorded sound and justifiable reasons to acquit the accused. There is no miscarriage of justice. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate do not deserve to be interfered with and hence, the appeal being sans merits deserves to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant had also filed civil suit for recovery of the same amount, which was involved in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant. However, the decree could not be executed as the whereabouts of the respondents could not be ascertained. The learned Counsel has prayed for remanding the matter. However, considering the fact that the original case is of the year 1997, it would not be proper to remand the matter to the trial court and allow the complainant to lead evidence. 6. This Court had appointed advocate Shri Yashpal Thakur to espouse the case of the respondents as the whereabouts of the respondents were not known. The learned Counsel has put in the best of the efforts and has drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4048(S.C.) and Shri G. Kamalakar v. Surana Securities Ltd. & anr. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "(21) The power of attorney holder is the agent of the grantor. When the grantor authorizes the attorney holder to initiate legal proceedings and the attorney holder accordingly initiates such legal proceedings, he does so as the agent of the grantor and the initiation is by the grantor represented by his attorney holder and not by the attorney holder in his personal capacity. Therefore, where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the payee, the proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor, and the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. However, we make it clear that the power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. However, we make it clear that the power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. In other words, he can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal." 7. In view of the above observations and the submissions advanced across the bar by both the Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the Judgment and Order dated 19/6/1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in Case No. 1404/S/1997, thereby acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. Judgment cannot be completed without recording appreciation for the efforts taken by the advocate so appointed. The professional fees of the learned advocate is quantified at Rs. 3000/- to be paid to him within 3 months from today. 10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.