Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (11) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After issuing statutory notice to the petitioner, 1st respondent lodged a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the cases and issued summons to the petitioner. Petitioner filed petitions in each case under section 204 Cr. P.C. seeking to discharge him from the cases, inter alia, contending that the complaints filed by the complainant through its Manager, who has not been properly authorized to represent the 1st respondent, which is a proprietary concern, are not maintainable. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petitions. Questioning the said order, petitioner preferred revisions before this Court in Crl. R.C. Nos. 1120 of 2001 etc., whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this Court in S.P. Sampathy v. Manju Gupta [2002] (1) ALD (Crl.) 619 (AP). The complaints are liable to be quashed. In any event since Vilas Mangulkar, who signed the complaints, is not the payee or holder in due course of the cheques, the complaints filed with his signature on behalf of the complainant concern are liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for 1st respondent is that these petitions are but an abuse of process of Court, because they are filed after the cases are posted for evidence on behalf of the petitioner after he was examined under section 313 Cr. P.C., and also because all the contentions now raised by the petitioner were already answered against him earlier in Criminal R.C. Nos. 1120 of 2001 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d for evidence of the petitioner, by itself entails dismissal of these petitions. Lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that he did not disclose either in the petitions, or in the Crl. M. Ps., filed in these petitions seeking stay of all further proceedings before the trial Court, that the cases are posted for his evidence that he filed these petitions after the complainant adduced his evidence and after he was examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. He also deliberately suppressed the factum of his filing Revisions against the orders of dismissal of the petitions filed by him for discharge and those revisions being dismissed. Certified copies of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, as recorded o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dings before the trial Court on 13-9-2002. 6. The ratio in the Division Bench decision of S.P. Sampathy s case ( supra ) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, is that a complaint for an offence under section 138 of the Act can only be filed either by the payee or the holder in due course of the dishonoured cheques, and since power of attorney of the complainant is not and cannot be said to be the payee of the dishonoured cheques, he cannot file the complaint, and when a complaint is filed in the name of the payee, the payee only, but not his power of attorney, has to sign the complaint. In all these cases, admittedly, 1st respondent-complainant is the payee of the dishonoured cheques. Since the 1st respondent is a concern, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to file another petition for the same relief over and again by raising new contentions piecemeal. Petitioner, under the guise of these petitions, obviously is seeking a review of the order passed in Crl. R.C. Nos. 1120 of 2001 etc., dated 3-1-2002 referred to above. It is well known that review is not permissible in criminal proceedings. In fact the contentions now raised could as well have been raised before the trial Court at the time of arguments, but obviously with a view to buy time and drag on the proceedings before the trial only, these petitions are filed. For the aforesaid reasons, all the petitions are dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for 1st respondent, on the basis that these petitions are filed with a view to harass the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates