9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the return of complaint by the Judicial Magistrate for rectification of defects, the sufficiency of court fee paid, and the impact of returning and re-presenting the complaint on the legal rights of the accused. Return of Complaint and Defects: The petitioners, who are accused in a calendar case u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the repeated returns of the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate. The main contention was that the return of a complaint by a criminal court is not in line with criminal law and should lead to dismissal of the complaint. The petitioners argued that the return of the complaint affected the limitation for lodging the complaint. However, the respondent contended that the return of a complaint for rectification of defects is recognized by law and does not extend the statutory period of limitation. The respondent relied on Section 207 Cr.P.C. to justify the return of the complaint by the Magistrate. Sufficiency of Court Fee: Another point raised by the petitioners was the insufficiency of court fee paid at the time of presenting the complaint. They argued that there is no provision for returning a complaint for affixing proper court fee after it was presented with a deficit. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Presiding Officer of a Court has the power to extend the time for affixing proper court fee as per the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The respondent also cited Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. to support the requirement of supplying additional stamp paper to rectify such defects. Impact on Legal Rights of Accused: The Court examined whether the returning and re-presenting of the complaint would prejudice the legal rights of the accused. It was emphasized that an irregularity can be rectified, but not an illegality. Referring to previous judgments, the Court held that the return of the complaint for rectification of defects and re-presentation by the party are administrative procedures that do not prejudice the accused's rights. The Court highlighted that the accused cannot challenge administrative acts of the Court if the complaint was presented within the statutory period. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, stating that after the trial has commenced, there can be no quashing of proceedings. Citing a previous decision, the Court emphasized that allowing the trial to proceed to its logical conclusion is essential. Quashing the proceedings at a part-heard stage would be improper. Therefore, the petition was deemed devoid of merits, and the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2004 were to continue until their logical conclusion.
|
