TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cognisance dated 8.6.2020 complies with the requirement of Section 191(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C? - Whether Summons could have been ordered without following the procedure under Section 204 of Cr.P.C? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, a mere perusal of the Impugned Order, makes it apparent that the same does not disclose any application of mind for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to why each of the accused including the Petitioner herein, are required to be proceeded against - When there are multiple accused, the order is required to disclose the application of mind by the Court taking Cognisanse as regards each accused. The Court taking Cognisance ought to have referred to and recorded the reasons why the said Court believes that an offence is made out so as to take Cognisance more so on account of the fact that it is on taking Cognisance that the criminal law is set in motion insofar as accused is concerned and there may be several cases and instances where if the Court taking Cognisance were to apply its mind, the Complaint may not even be considered by the said Court taking Cognisance let alone taking Cognisance and issuance of Summons - the order dated 08.06.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held - In the event of accused being an individual, if the said accused has a temporary residence within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, again merely because he does not have a permanent residence, there is no enquiry which is required to be conducted under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held - In the event of accused being aggrieved by the issuance of Summons, the said accused immediately on receipt of the Summons and/or on appearance before the Magistrate is required to make out his grievance before the Magistrate and/or by petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If there is any delay, in such challenge and/or if challenge has not made within reasonable time, the accused would not be entitled to raise the grievance that the procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed on account of delay and latches. Which Court could exercise Jurisdiction as regards an offence relating to an e- commerce transaction? - HELD THAT:- In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be liable for any action or inaction on part of a vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place. Whether Snapdeal/accused No.2 would be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 on its platform accused No.2 being an intermediary? - HELD THAT:- Though the platform is owned and operated by Snapdeal it is Accused No. 1, who has exhibited and offered its products for sale on the Snapdeal's platform. Snapdeal being an intermediary is exempt from criminal prosecution as aforestated - In this background neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be or made liable for alleged offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act - Snapdeal/accused No.2 would not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 on its platform by accused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18 (1)(c) of the Act not having been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate limited who is seeking for the following reliefs: a) Call for records in C.C.No.156/2020 pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru; b) Quash the Complaint the Complaint dated 5.6.2020 in C.C.No.156/2020 pending on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CMM, Mysuru; and c) Quash the order dated 8.6.2020 and further proceedings pending in C.C.No.156/2020 pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CMM, Mysuru taking Cognisance of the offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and issuing Summons to the petitioners. 3. Though there are two petitions filed, essentially the averments made in both the petitions are one and the same. Both the petitions arise out of the Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.156/2020 initiated against the petitioners in both the matters and certain others for alleged violation of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 4. In the petitions it is contended as under: Background of Snapdeal 4.1. Jasper Infotech Private Limited [ now Snapdeal Private Limited (Petitioner)], was inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Snapdeal's Terms of Service ( Abuse Policy ), the policy dealing with prohibited items on Snapdeal and the consequences of violation ( Prohibited Seller Activities and Consequences Policy ). 4.4.4. Seller Agreement: which contains the basic terms and conditions of selling products over Snapdeal which every Seller has to agree with. 4.5. Snapdeal's business as per its 'Terms of Offer for Sale', is a platform that facilitates the online sale and purchases of branded merchandise and services ( Services ) offered by Snapdeal's various affiliate/ registered merchants/ vendors/ service providers ( Vendor/s ). The Vendors are the Sellers of products and services on the Website who are stated to be solely responsible to the purchaser/customer for the products sold or for redemption of any Voucher purchased by the purchaser/customer through the Website. 4.6. Snapdeal enters into seller agreements with various sellers, the seller agreements are accompanied by a Schedule of banned products, which categorically includes 21. Prescription Medicines and Drugs . 4.7. Under the Seller Agreement, the sellers are stated to have agreed to several conditions the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge and warrant that Seller shall not sell any Product which may cause prejudice or harm to the reputation and goodwill of Snapdeal. Further, if Snapdeal receives any complaint from any Buyer or if Seller sells or delivers fake, duplicate, spurious, counterfeit, refurbished or previously owned Products through the Website then Seller shall be debited with an amount of equivalent to total GMV(Gross Merchandise Value) of all products sold through Snapdeal's Website or ₹ 5,00,000, whichever is higher and will lead to immediate delisting of all of Seller's products from Snapdeal. Snapdeal reserves the right to adjust the above amount from any amount accrued to Seller pursuant to this Agreement. 4.13. Snapdeal has also published a document titled 'Prohibited Seller Activities and consequences Policy Document', where one of the Prohibited seller activities is clearly specified as: Advertising, exhibiting, Hazardous materials publishing, Narcotic Drugs and representing, listing, Psychotropic delivering, exposing for Substances sale, offering to sell or Prescription Medicines selling products which and Drugs. are banned as per Banned Product List annexes to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and purchaser. 4.17.6. On 10.08.2017, the Respondent addressed a letter to the Assistant Drugs Controller - 02, Belgaum Circle, to furnish certified copies of the Constitution details and other documents of Snapdeal. 4.17.7. On 21.05.2017, Snapdeal addressed a letter to the Assistant Drugs Controller-02, Belgaum Circle furnishing all the required documents as requested. 4.17.8. On 22.08.2017 and 29.05.2017, the Deputy Drugs Controller, Mysuru sent emails to Snapdeal to ascertain whether the Constitution details of Snapdeal were the same as before. 4.17.9. Sri. Krishna Mohan Chaudary, Authorized Signatory of Snapdeal replied to the email and furnished the list of Directors of Snapdeal and on subsequent dates, the same exercise was repeated. On 15.01.2020, Snapdeal replied to the Respondent. 4.17.10. On the basis of the above it is alleged that there is a violation under Section 18(c) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, which sections are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: Section 18(c) : (c) manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [or cosmetic], exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions, if proved, would constitute an offence, in the present case, a mere perusal of the Impugned Order makes it abundantly clear that the same does not disclose application of mind. 5.4. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505 more particularly para 19 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. 19. In the order issuing Summons, the learned Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case as against Respondents 2 to 7 and the role played by them in the capacity of Managing Director, Company Secretary or Directors which is sine qua non for initiating criminal action against them. Recently, in Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny while dealing with a similar case, this Court held as under: 38. Though Respondent 1 has roped all the appellants in a criminal case without their specific role or participation in the alleged offence with the sole purpose of settling his dispute with the appellant Company by initiating the criminal prosecution, it is pointed out that Appellants 2 to 8 are the ex- Chairperson, ex-Directors and senior managerial personnel of Appellant 1 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. In the present case, a mere perusal of the Impugned Order, makes it apparent that the same does not disclose any application of mind for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to why each of the accused including the Petitioner herein, are required to be proceeded against. When there are multiple accused, the order is required to disclose the application of mind by the Magistrate as regards each accused. Role of an Intermediary under the Act 5.8. That the need for on independent inquiry as per the requirements of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is borne out by the fact the Court of the Learned Trial Court passed the Impugned Order without ascertaining (i) the role of Snapdeal in the sale of a product on its platform and (ii) the exact role of the Petitioners. 5.9. Snapdeal is an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and is therefore entitled to the exemption from liability in terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if- (a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or othorise in the commission of the unlawful Act; (b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource, controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful Act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner. Explanation. -For the purpose of this section, the expression third party information means any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary. 5.16. An intermediary cannot be responsible for the listing and sale of allegedly products by independent third-party sellers on its marketplace by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place will not exercise ownership over the inventory i.e., goods purported to be sold. Such an ownership over the inventory will render the business into inventory based model. v. An e-commerce entity will not permit more than 25% of the sales affected through its marketplace from one vendor or their group companies. vi. In marketplace model goods/services made available for sale electronically on Website should clearly provide name, address and other contact details of the Seller. Post sales, delivery of goods to the customers and customer satisfaction will be responsibility of the Seller. vii. In marketplace model, payments for sale may be facilitated by the e-commerce entity in conformity with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. viii. In marketplace model, any warrantee/guarantee of goods and services sold will be responsibility of the Seller. ix. E-commerce entities providing marketplace will not directly or indirectly influence the sale price of goods or services and shall maintain level playing field. x. Guidelines on cash and carry wholesale trading as given in para 6.2, 16.1.2 of the FDI Policy will apply on B2B e- commerce. 5.18. That subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its email address and any other information necessary for communication with the Seller for effective dispute resolution; (b) a ticket number for each Complaint lodged through which the consumer can track the status of the Complaint; (c) information relating to return, refund, exchange, warranty and guarantee, delivery and shipment, modes of payment, and grievance redressal mechanism, and any other similar information which may be required by consumers to make informed decisions; (d) information on available payment methods, the security of those payment methods, any fees or charges payable by users, the procedure to cancel regular payments under those methods, charge- back options, if any, and the contact information of the relevant payment service provider; (e) all information provided to it by sellers under sub-rule (5) of rule 6; and an explanation of the main parameters which, individually or collectively, are most significant in determining the ranking of goods or sellers on its platform and the relative importance of those main parameters through an easily and publicly available description drafted in plain and intelligible language. (4) Every marketplace e-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to day affairs of the Company, like the sale of the products, which was done only by Accused No. 1, therefore no offence can be alleged against them since they have no personal knowledge as to the legality or otherwise of the products that are being sold by third-party sellers. 5.24. He relied upon the decision of the Apex court in in Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujurat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 more particularly para 13 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression shall and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. 5.27. All of the Accused, including the Petitioners, reside beyond the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court. Therefore, the Impugned Order is ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside since the same has been passed without conducting the mandatory enquiry as per Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. 6. C.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP on the other hand would submit that: Whether the Petitioner is a manufacturer or not, the fact that the Petitioner owns market place Snapdeal is sufficient to prosecute the Petitioner for any offence or violation committed by any seller on the platform. 6.1. That the order of cogn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement of Section 191(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C? (ii) Whether Summons could have been ordered without following the procedure under Section 204 of Cr.P.C ? (iii) Whether the Magistrate could have issued Summons to accused Nos. 2 who is stated to be not registered within the Jurisdiction of the Magisterate without holding an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C.? (iv) Whether the Magistrate could have and 4 i.e. petitioners in Crl.P.No.4676/2020 since they are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate without holding an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. ? (v) Which Court could exercise Jurisdiction as regards an offence relating to an e- commerce transaction? (vi) Whether an intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act would be liable for any action or inaction on party of a vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place? (vii) Whether Snapdeal/accused No.2 would be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 on its platform accused No.2 being an intermediary? (viii)Effect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icious prosecution and/or frivolous complaints. 9.8. When a complaint or a police report or information by a person other than police officer is placed before the Court, the judicial officer must apply judicious mind coupled with discretion which is not to be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, fanciful or casual way. 9.9. Any offence alleged being one of commission or omission attracting penal statutes; Cognisance can be taken only if the allegations made fulfil the basic requirement of the said penal provision. At this point, it is not required for the Court taking Cognisance to ascertain the truth or veracity of the allegation but only to appreciate if the allegations taken at face value, would amount to the offence complained of or not. If Yes, Cognisance could be taken, if No, taking Cognisance could be refused. The only manner of ascertaining the above is by the manner of recordal made by the Court in the order taking Cognisance. The order passed by the court taking cognisance would therefore reflect such application of mind to the factual situation 9.10. In the above background that the order passed by the Magistrate taking Cognisance has to be appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. 9.16. In the present case, a mere perusal of the Impugned Order, makes it apparent that the same does not disclose any application of mind for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to why each of the accused including the Petitioner herein, are required to be proceeded against. 9.17. When there are multiple accused, the order is required to disclose the application of mind by the Court taking Cognisanse as regards each accused. 9.18. The Court taking Cognisance ought to have referred to and recorded the reasons why the said Court believes that an offence is made out so as to take Cognisance more so on account of the fact that it is on taking Cognisance that the criminal law is set in motion insofar as accused is concerned and there may be several cases and instances where if the Court taking Cognisance were to apply its mind, the Complaint may not even be considered by the said Court taking Cognisance let alone taking Cognisance and issuance of Summons. 9.19. In view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. 3. If an investigation under sub- section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer- in- charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. 10.3. A perusal of the Complaint indicates that the address of accused Nos.3 and 4 provided by the complainant himself is that of New Delhi. within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Mysuru which has been provided. A perusal of the entire Complaint also does not indicate any address or presence of accused Nos.3 and 4 within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in Mysuru. The only allegation which has been made is that they are Directors of accused No.2-Snapdeal Private Limited and proceedings have been initiated merely on the ground that Sri.C.M.Shivakumar, CW-9 vide his E-mail dated 29.08.2019 having informed about accused Nos.3 and 4 being Directors of accused No.2, there has been no correspondence by the complainant that acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fo conduct a mandatory enquiry as per Section 202 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 10.12. There being a violation of the requirement under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., I am of the considered opinion that the Magistrate could not have issued Summons to the petitioners in both the matters without following the requirement and without conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as held by the Apex court in Vijay Dhanka vs. Najima Momtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638 as also by this court in B.S.YEDIYURAPPA - vs- State of Karnataka [Crl.P. No.100964/2020 DD 11.09.2020]. 10.13. I answer Point No. (iii) and (iv) by holding that : 10.14. When the accused is having an office, branch office, corporate office, sales office or the like within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed and or continues to be committed, there would be no requirement for any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held. 10.15. In the event of accused being an individual, if the said accused has a temporary residence within the Juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the reason that: 11.5.1. The place of commission of the offence is uncertain because it has been committed in several places. 11.5.2. Where an offence is partly committed in one local area and the rest in another area. 11.5.3. When the offence comprises of several acts, committed in different local areas. 11.6. When an act is an offence because of anything which has been done and a consequence has ensued, the said offence may be inquired into or tried by a court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 179 of the Cr. P.C. 11.7. The place of trial when the Act committed is an offence because it is related to some other offence is as per Section 180 of the Cr. P.C. According to it the offence which has been committed first has to be inquired into or tried, when two acts are done in connection with each other and both are offences, by the Court under whose jurisdiction either of the Act has been committed. In all such provisions, the emphasis is always on the place where the offence has been committed, to find the jurisdiction. 11.8. According to Section 181(1) of Cr. P.C, the trial can also be commenced where the accused is found, besides the place where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n send him to the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, in terms of Section 187 of the Cr. P.C. 11.14. The present case is one of an unauthorised sale or sale of a prohibited item. The present case is not one of Cyber Crime. 11.15. In the present case is not that there was a sale of a product physically, meaning that the product was not handed over immediately on sale. If that were so, jurisdictional matters would be very simple in that the Court where the physical transaction happened would have Jurisdiction. 11.16. In the present case as in all e-commerce transactions, the sale took place on the internet, in that once the product was put up for sale on the marketplace, anyone could have bought the same from any place so long as the product could be delivered at the place where the buyer was located. A buyer could also place an order from one place and get the product delivered at another. It is for this reason that the concept of Jurisdiction of courts in e-commerce transactions gets complicated. 11.17. In so far as civil matters are concerned the courts have over a period of time developed several tests to determine as to which court could have jurisdiction, the test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / registered merchants/ vendors/ service providers ( Vendor/s ). 12.3. Snapdeal being an intermediary can not be disputed, it comes with the meaning and definition of Intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Snapdeal would be entitled to the exemption from liability in terms of Section 79 Information Technology Act, 2000 if the requirements thereof are met. 12.4. Snapdeal is not the Seller, it is the Vendors registered with Snapdeal who are the Sellers of products and services on its platform, it is the Vendors who are solely responsible to the purchaser/customer. 12.5. For its part Snapdeal has entered into seller agreements with various sellers, the seller agreements are accompanied by a Schedule of banned products, which categorically includes 21. Prescription Medicines and Drugs . 12.6. The Seller Agreement, details out the terms and conditions relevant to the transaction, which are extracted hereinabove. 12.7. Snapdeal has also published a document titled 'Prohibited Seller Activities and consequences Policy Document', where one of the Prohibited seller ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down third-party content upon receipt of either a court order or a notice by an appropriate government authority and not otherwise, which as per the Complaint filed indicates has been complied with by Snapdeal, by removing the information regarding the sale of the offending item. 12.15. I answer Point No. (vi) by holding that an intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act or its directors/officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on part of a vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place. 13. POINT NO. (vii): Whether Snapdeal/accused No.2 would be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 on its platform accused No.2 being an intermediary? 13.1. Section 18(1)(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 applies to a manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic, coming within the perview and ambit of the Act. Such manufacture is also required to be for sale or for distribution of any drug or cosmetic. 13.2. The only allegation in the present matter is as regards Snapdeal having made available i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AIR 1997 SC 3247) and Gorge Pentaiah v. State of A.P. Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531 it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the Complaint may prove to be fatal. In such cases the Court has to carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason, that the complainant party may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. The proceedings before a court ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In cases, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 14.4. In the present case the Complaint was filed with an inordinate delay of nearly six years, though the transaction is stated to have occurred in the year 2014. 14.5. In the Complaint filed there is no explanation or justification w h i c h has been given for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Magistrate, again merely because he does not have a permanent residence, there is no enquiry which is required to be conducted under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held. 16.4. When the accused has no presence within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed, then it would be mandatory for an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C to be held. 16.5. In the event of accused being aggrieved by the issuance of Summons, the said accused immediately on receipt of the Summons and/or on appearance before the Magistrate is required to make out his grievance before the Magistrate Court and/or by petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If there is any delay, in such challenge and/or if challenge has not made within reasonable time, the accused would not be entitled to raise the grievance that the procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed on account of delay and latches. 16.6. Only a Court in which the accused has a presence, like registered office, branch office, corporate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
