9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in several cases filed by the respondent. They are employees of a private limited company which is now under liquidation. Proceedings are initiated at the behest of respondent-2 under Section 200, Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) thereof against the petitioners who were former Managing Directors and Director of the wound up company, viz., Victory Glass Industries Limited, alleging commission of offences under Section 142 of the Act. Suffice it to say that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the complaint and that was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 142(b) of the Act. The learned Magistrate having considered the application, has allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds in a bank account. Section 142 would deal with taking of cognizance of the offence. Section 142(b) of the Act would specify the time limit within which a complaint is required to be filed for the offence under Section 138. Under Section 142(b), a complaint is required to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action has arisen under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 142 of the Act. The proviso was added by Act No. 55/02 with effect from 6.2.2003 enabling the complainant to file the complaint after the prescribed period if he satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause in not making the complaint within the time prescribed. On a reading of the proviso which was inserted by Act No. 55/02, it becomes abundantly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is by law invested with power to affect the property of one of Her Majesty's subjects, is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds: and that the rule is of universal application and founded on the plainest principles of justice. Now is the board in the present case such a tribunal? I apprehend it clearly is.... Byles, J said: It seems to me that the board are wrong whether they acted judicially or ministerially. I conceive they acted judicially, because they had to determine the offence, and they had to apportion the punishment as well as the remedy. That being so, a long course of decisions beginning with Dr. Bentley's case and ending with some vary recent cases, establish that although there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocal board is the only tribunal that can make such an order, its act must be a judicial act, and the party to be affected should have a notice given to him.... In the present case, there is nothing in the Act of Parliament to limit the natural inference as to the nature of the Act. 11. Taking into consideration the fact that the delay of 3 days was condoned without notice to the petitioners, I am of the view that the proceedings commencing from taking cognizance and issuing process to the petitioners requires to be set aside as it is opposed to principles of natural justice. 10. Consequently, all the petitions are allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate condoning the delay, taking cognizance and issuing process is set aside. The matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
