9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Jurisdictional error in summoning appellant as an additional accused without proper notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
In the judgment, the appellant challenged a writ petition filed by him questioning the correctness of being arrayed as an additional accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The original accused had issued a cheque which bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to a complaint being filed. The complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant as an additional accused based on the Bank Manager's statement linking the appellant to the account. However, it was noted that the conditions precedent specified in Section 138 of the Act, including serving notice to the appellant, were not met. The learned Magistrate's order summoning the appellant was deemed to be a jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal due to the lack of maintainability of the complaint petition against the appellant. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the law, specifically in cases involving complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It underscores the significance of serving proper notice to the accused before taking legal actions, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions to ensure the validity of court orders and judgments.
|
