9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been filed by a power of attorney holder of the complainant. The learned Single Judge of this court in Smt. Payyati Savitri Devi v. Malireddy Damayanthamma [1998] 93 Comp. Cas. 958 (AP) relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Manimekalai v. Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghi [1995] Crl. LJ 1102 has taken the view that a complaint could be filed by a general power of attorney holder also. The Madras High Court formed the opinion on the basis of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is not much of discussion in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Smt. Payyati Savitri Devi s case ( supra ), therefore, the learned Single Judge before whom the present matters had come up, expressing his doubts about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force." 3. From a bare perusal of section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is clear that the Code lays down procedure for trial of all criminal cases except under any special or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, for the purpose of taking cognizance, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have been excluded by section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, any reference or reliance placed on section 198 or Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code is misplaced. The trial court gets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment did not consider the import of section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also referred to a Full Bench judgment of this court in Kamapati Venkat Ramiah v. Challapalli Sitharamiah AIR 1961 AP 208. We do not feel it relevant for the purpose of this case. Similarly, the judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surinder Singh v. John Impex (P.) Ltd. [1997] 1 Civil CC 81 was referred to. There was no special provision and the complaint in that case was in terms of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also referred to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Abdul Rahim v. Amal Kumar [1994] 2 Civil CC 60. We do not agree with the views taken for the reasons given hereinabove. 5. We are of the considered view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
