TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 138 of the Act is to be taken by the Court, also speaks of a complaint and not the complaints which would also indicate that it envisages only one complainant in a complaint and, therefore, rules out filing of a joint complaint by two or more than two persons. As is provided under Section 143 of the Act, the cases under Section 138 of the Act are required to be tried summarily by following the procedure laid down under the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness that may have been examined and proceeded to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, thus, not correct to say that Chapter XVII is a complete Code in itself and exclude the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code. This petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of July, 2014, requesting the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques within 15 days of the receipt of notice but the petitioner chose not to liquidate the amount. Having faced with the refusal by the petitioner to pay the cheque amount, the respondents joined hands to file a complaint before the trial court, from where the impugned order has arisen. 4) The impugned order has arisen out of an application moved by the petitioner for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that a joint complaint by the respondents was not maintainable. The application was objected to by the respondents. 5) The trial court considered the rival contentions and dismissed the application of the petitioner without returning any finding as to the maintainability of joint complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The application was dismissed on the ground that the trial court after having taken cognizance of the complaint was bereft of jurisdiction to review its order. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point out that a joint complaint by two persons in respect of one and the same offence is not maintainable under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10) In the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of Maheswari (supra), the view taken by the Court is summed up in para 14, which reads thus: 14. Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates examination of the Complainant. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on Complaint shall examine on oath the Complainant. If there is more than one complaint, it will be difficult for the Magistrate to form an opinion for taking cognizance of an offence. This applies to the Power of attorney of two Complaints also. Therefore, the joint Complaint given by two persons is not maintainable and liable to be quashed. 11) To the similar effect is an earlier judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Narayanaswami and others v. Egappa Reddi and others, 1962 SCC Online Mad. 45. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, a Single Bench has dealt with the issue in the following manner: .....Under Section 233 Crl. P. C, for each distinct offence of which any person is accused, there should be a separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 8 [a term which may be extended to two years ], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 9 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, debt of other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 141. Offences by companies.--(1) If the person committing an offence under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138. (2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,-- (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account. 143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness that may have been examined and proceeded to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, thus, not correct to say that Chapter XVII is a complete Code in itself and exclude the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that view of the matter, I am not impressed with the argument of Mr. Shafqat Nazir that the legal position and the law cited by Mr. N. H. Shah, would only be applicable to the complaints under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would have no application even by analogy to the complaints under Section 138 of the Act. A conjoint reading of Sections 138, 141, 142 and 143 of the Act, undoubtedly, point towards one conclusion that even under Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
