TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from time to time. The respondent also has been making payments for the supplies made to him from time to time. A sum of ₹ 52,000 was, paid by the respondent to the petitioner-company by way of five cheques as under : SI. No. Cheque No. Bank Amount (Rs.) Date of cheque 1. 608453 Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17C, Chandigarh 7,000 25-8-1989 2. 608454 -do- 10,000 25-9-1989 3. 608457 -do- 10,000 25-12-1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h law. On December 16, 1993, when the case was fixed for the service of notice under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, upon the respondent, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint in default under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. The petitioner thereafter on December 29, 1993, approached the learned Magistrate by way of an application seeking the restoration of the complaint which was dismissed in default on December 16, 1993. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on December 30, 1993, vide the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure Code, subordinate criminal courts have no inherent powers. 8. The apex court again in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur MANU/SC/0185/1986 : AIR 1986 SC 1440, 1442, has held as under (headnote) : So far as the accused is concerned, dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant or his discharge or acquittal on the same ground is a final order and in the absence of any specific provision in the Code, a magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction, to restore the case. A second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar MANU/SC/0149/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 876 ; [1962] 1 Crl. LJ 770. Filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri R. K. Sood. The said Shri R. K. Sood was thus prosecuting the complaint for and on behalf of the petitioner-company. On the date fixed in the case, that is, December 16, 1993, Shri R. K. Sood, was not present nor the counsel representing the petitioner-company was present. Faced with such situation, the learned magistrate while acting under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned order dated December 30, 1993, passed by the learned magistrate refusing to restore the complaint dismissed in default earlier on December 16, 1993, in view of the law laid down by the apex court, therefore, cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... magistrate while passing the order dated December 16, 1993, dismissing the complaint in default and acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had not acted illegally in any manner. The said order on the face of it is legal and falls within the ambit of section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such order of acquittal cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A petition, therefore, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against an order of acquittal passed under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. 15. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
