Cheque Bounce Conviction Cannot Be Reversed In Revision Over POA Pleading Defect: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 18 May 2026 held that a conviction in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the NI Act, cannot be set aside at the revision stage merely on the ground that the complaint was filed through a power-of-attorney holder without an averment as to the attorney's personal knowledge of the transaction, unless the accused shows that the defect caused prejudice or resulted in a failure of justice.

Justice G Girish noted that in the present case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam convicted the accused and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment along with a direction to pay Rs. 29.5 lakh as compensation, and the Additional Sessions Court upheld the conviction in appeal. He held:

“It is clear from the aforesaid provision of law that in the present case, the findings of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, which were upheld by the Appellate Court, are not liable to be reversed in this revision proceedings unless it is shown that a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned due to the act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence upon the complaint filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant.”

Before the High Court, the accused argued that the complaint was not maintainable as it was filed through a power-of-attorney holder without any averment that she had personal knowledge of the transaction, and therefore the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance.

The Bench rejected this contention, holding that the accused relied on decisions dealing with objections raised at the stage of issuance of process, whereas he failed to raise any such objection at the appropriate stage. It noted that the complainant later entered the witness box, supported the transaction with evidence, and underwent cross-examination, which formed the basis of the concurrent findings of guilt.

The Court also referred to Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that it could not reverse a conviction in revision unless a failure of justice was shown. it observed that the accused had not challenged the cognizance order at the relevant stage. It held:

“In the above circumstances, the verdicts rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are not liable to be overturned in this revision proceedings due to the irregularity pertaining to the absence of specific contentions in the complaint about the direct personal knowledge of the power of attorney holder about the transactions which resulted in the offence.”

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the conviction and compensation awarded by the courts below. However, considering the nature of the offence, it modified the sentence from six months' simple imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court.

For Accused: Advocate H Ramanan

For Complainant and State: Advocates B Mohanlal, Biju George and Anima M, Public Prosecutor