JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Accused-respondent had issued cheque in favour of S.S. Agarwal, however, the complaint was filed by Kanti Prashad Agarwal elder brother being attorney. Power of attorney dated 25.03.2010 was annexed with the complaint. During the course of the final arguments before the trial court, a question arose whether power of attorney, can depose on behalf of the complainant and give evidence of facts which are in personal knowledge of the complainant. 2. The trial Judge relying upon the case law, upheld the contention that a complaint can be filed by a power of attorney, however, the attorney cannot appear in court and give evidence on behalf of the complainant qua the facts which are in personal knowledge of the complainant. It was held that since attorney has no knowledge of the facts, his deposition cannot be taken into consideration. 3. The trial Judge noted that the attorney specifically deposed in the court that the accused-respondent had taken no amount from him as a loan. 4. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- dM^IFd 138 RRORTtoRFF ff fRftf hRii cRT ^RT FRRT T ^ ftftPff t, frRJ RT3F t FTF RTF RFfft FtTFT FiFR TRtt cRTf Ft RlftcT FIT RFFTT t Rt RRFt vjIM+iO ^ Ft RFT RTSF t FF HftFl41 FT RR t TTTm Riff tcTT % RftFT TFF FT RR t TFF Ft wlM'W'O FT R^Ff FF FRR FR RFFTT t1 Fit FF FftFltt Ft IHw{| % R*Ft Ft RFtt HM t RR1RT t Ft FF FTFcF RTF 3R5JcT RTRT tt Fttt, Rt RTFFTftF? RfRI ^ RcTTFT 1t?R?t cFFf Rt RlftcT FRt t RFTFF? RfRI ^ RcTTFT 1t?R?t cFFf Rt RlftcT FRt t RFTFF? Fit Fttt I FF FFRR t arr HM FF RRF IttRR FRt FT FF TRR tlRT t ftr hRII51 FT FTF STTF" Rt'i'fl FRFtt FFTF RFFTR FTTT RFtt FftrtRT t TFRTT: FRF ftFT t ftr FF Rlt % FlM ^FT t RTft Ftf TT% FFR FTFT Rtf F?t I FFTF t FF tt RflFFT ft?FT t % RRFT F FITfepfr % RST ommR+ elRtR Rtf FT I FFt tt-1 tFT tf TFF % FTF t Rtft Ftt F> F*F % FFFT FRFT t FFT RtftR tf TFF F> FTF t Rtft M ^ TW t f FFFT FRFT 11 HftFI FF tf Ftt T$Z7$Z tFT FRt FT FRF t tt FF FFTF WT FRFT tl FF FFTF FF tt FRF FRFT t % i^Rpft TT% FtRtt RtftTT Ft, RTF Ft tt FF R1R Rtf FFT TTFRTTI FFTF FF tt FRF FRFT t fir RtfPJFFT Rlftftt ^TTT t F?tt Rtf fteTT FFT FF RtfnjFRT ^ FTR % RRR t FF FFTF RF^TFFT FFTFT t FFT Slf^FFT % RFf^lF F5*f fsTFT R=FTT5TT^F % FtFTT^FT 3RFT RlfeTF> #T I ^T RFF ^ ^t FR FFTF F^t IM+l(l F# t RF 1^ ftFT R=FTTFT#F FF FRT FFT t FR TTFR ^ # FF FFTF RTFFFft #T^ ^ FFFT FRFT tl FF FFTF RTlIeRft ft ^ FTF^flF Ftt F> F^F t ^t FFFT FRFT tl FF FFTF FF sft FRFT t^>FFRttt^>^RT^ RRORRORFFTeT t FTlfMT ^T RTRt Ft^ TT^T RFR Rtt fM FR TTFFT RFTtFR RTF t FF TRR FtFT t % mRII RSF Rt ^t RqFt FF ^R tR F> 3T^TF?f^F RFFFR ^RT I Ft RTFT 3TTF RFpfT FtFFT % R Ft RTR^ ^RT t FT tt Rt FR RRR ^ IH+lO t FFT RF^ft ^T RftFTT ^ FFTF FR Rt ^t FRR i%FT t FT ^FeT RTR RftFT^t 1TTT FFT^ - RTt ^ RTFR FT tt %FT tl FftFT^t RRORRORTTFTcT TFF FR RIR^ ^ FftfeF F# fRT 11 ^TRt Rf^TJFFT Ft RRt FftTRT FF RFRT ^t RFeTW Rtt |RT 11 FR FFFT FR FFRR t FTFT 3ffF RFftt FTTFT Wf % etR tR $ RfopfaF RFFFR % RT# ^ RR t Fft^TF Rtf f3R 11 5. In the present case, attorney went further ahead and said that even he is not aware whether his brother S.S. Agarwal, had advanced any amount as a loan to the accused-respondent. In the present case, attorney went further ahead and said that even he is not aware whether his brother S.S. Agarwal, had advanced any amount as a loan to the accused-respondent. S.S. Agarwal in whose favour cheque was issued has not been examined. 6. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 for placing necessary documents on record which can be exhibited now and made part of the record. It is too late in the day to allow application for additional evidence as proceedings of offence under section 138 of the NI Act, because of the sentence prescribed are to be treated as a summon case. It may be noted that in these cases the trial Judge can also follow the summary procedure. 7. Lacunas left cannot be filled after 8 years of issuance of cheque and that to in leave to appeal against acquittal. 8. The view formulated by the trial Judge cannot be termed perverse rather same is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present application for grant of leave to appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.