9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Dropping of proceedings against non-signatory partners in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: 1. Legal Principle Invoked: The revision petitions were filed against the dropping of proceedings against three accused persons who were not signatories in the cheque, invoking the dictum in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) KLT 1. The accused 3 to 5 were not signatories and had complained about the cognizance taken against them without sufficient materials. 2. Application of Section 138 of N.I. Act: The court observed that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was being misused as a measure of oppression against sleeping partners who were not involved in the day-to-day transactions of a firm. The court emphasized the duty of magistrates to carefully assess whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against non-signatories/partners to prevent misuse of the legal provision and avoid unjust indictment. 3. Magistrate's Consideration: The learned Magistrate received certain documents on record to consider dropping of proceedings as per the dictum in KM. Mathew's case. The court noted that introducing evidence at that stage was not correct, but despite this, the conclusion that accused 3 to 5 did not deserve to be proceeded against was deemed correct. The court, therefore, upheld the magistrate's decision not to interfere with the impugned orders despite the procedural irregularity. 4. Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the magistrate's decision not to proceed against the non-signatory partners accused in the cheque bounce case. The judgment emphasized the importance of preventing the misuse of legal provisions to oppress individuals who were not directly involved in the alleged offense, highlighting the need for a conscientious application of the law to ensure justice and fairness.
|
