9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 844 - HC - Indian LawsTime limitation - complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - it was alleged that the complaint of petition is barred by the Law of Limitation - non-compliance of the mandatory provision of law as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Held that - Section 142-A has been incorporated in the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on 15.06.2015. The aforesaid Section of Negotiable Instrument Act has been given retrospective effect stating inter-alia, as if that sub-Section had been in force at all material times. In the case under reference the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party no. 1 is saved by Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Moreover, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar has duly examined the representative of the complainant at the time of issuance of summons. That goes to show that learned Magistrate has duly complied the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and being satisfied about the case of the complainant, issued summons against the petitioner and other accused persons. Revision Application dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act based on Law of Limitation and non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The revisional application challenged an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing summons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner argued that the complaint was time-barred as per the Law of Limitation and non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case involved dishonored cheques issued by the petitioner to a company for rental charges. Legal notices were served, and a complaint was filed in Noida, which was later directed to be filed in Bidhannagar. The petitioner contended that the delay in refiling the complaint made it time-barred, citing the decision in Shibgiri Associates and Ors. vs. Mate so Mineral( India Pvt. Ltd.). Furthermore, it was argued that the summons issued did not comply with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referencing the case of Vijay Dhanuka & Ors vs. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. The court noted that as per previous decisions, the complaint under Section 138 should be filed within the jurisdiction where the cheques were drawn. In this case, the cheques were drawn on a bank in Kolkata, thus the complaint was rightly filed in Bidhannagar. The petitioner's argument of delay due to refiling was dismissed considering the retrospective effect of Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which allowed for transfer of cases to the appropriate jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly complied with by the learned Magistrate, who examined the complainant and issued summons based on the inquiry, as per the decision in Vijay Dhanuka & Ors vs. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. The court found no merit in the revisional application and dismissed it, with no order as to costs. In conclusion, the court upheld the issuance of summons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, rejecting the petitioner's arguments of limitation and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdiction, compliance with legal provisions, and proper inquiry before issuing summons in such cases.
|
