9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was time-barred. 2. Whether the trial court had the inherent power to allow amendments to the complaint. 3. Whether the Sessions Judge was correct in allowing the revision petition and permitting the amendment. Summary: Issue 1: Time-barred Complaint The petitioner challenged the order dated 28th March 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, which allowed the respondent's revision petition. The respondent had filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sections 406/420 of the IPC. The cheque in question was dishonored on 14th June 2003, and the complaint was filed on 28th August 2003, making it time-barred. The trial court noted that the complaint was based on the dishonoring of the cheque for the second time, which was not within the limitation period. Issue 2: Inherent Power to Amend Complaint On 9th October 2004, the respondent sought to amend the complaint to correct the date of the cheque's presentation and dishonor. The trial court rejected this application, stating that the proposed amendments were not typographical errors but would change the nature of the case. The trial court emphasized that u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, giving notice and demanding payment is a main ingredient, and incorrect notice would invalidate the complaint. Issue 3: Sessions Judge's Decision The Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition, considering the mistakes as typographical and emphasizing the need for justice over technicalities. The Sessions Judge cited a letter from the bank confirming the correct dates, thus treating the errors as typographical. High Court's Judgment: The High Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for inherent powers to subordinate courts except u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which is reserved for the High Court. The High Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Major General A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur, which clarified that subordinate criminal courts do not possess inherent powers. The High Court concluded that the trial court's rejection of the amendment was correct and the Sessions Judge erred in allowing it. The petition was allowed, setting aside the Sessions Judge's order and restoring the trial court's decision.
|
