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

2001 (12) TMI 904

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licant, Smt. Hem Lata Gupta, filed a complaint against opposite party No. 2. Smt. Manju Rathi on 26.6.1998 under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegation that on 29.5.1998, the opposite party No. 2 had issued four cheques of different amounts relating to Punjab National Bank, Nayaganj Branch, Kanpur payable to applicant. The applicant presented above cheques to her Bank for realisation. On 11.6.1998 she was informed that the account of Smt. Manju Rathi had been closed and, therefore, the cheques were dishonoured. The applicant, accordingly, sent a notice to opposite patty No. 2 on 13.6.1998. But the opposite partly No, 2 neither paid any amount, nor relied the notice; hence she filed complaint on 26.6.1998. 3. The appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it was premature and not maintainable. With these finding, he allowed the revision set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and dismissed the complaint being premature. 7. The above order of Additional Sessions Judge has been challenged in this revision. 8. The opposite party No. 2 was served with the notice and also filed Vakalatnama of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pandey and Dr. Archana Pandey, Advocates, but on the date of hearing none appeared from the side of opposite patty No. 2. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record, as none appeared from the side of opposite party No. 2. 10. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Additional Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x Court held as below : No period is prescribed before which the complaint cannot be filed and if filed not disclosing the cause of action in terms of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138, the Court may not take cognizance till the time the cause of action arises to the complainant, Taking cognizance of an offence by the Court has to be distinguished from the filing of the complaint by the complainant. Taking cognizance would mean the action taken by the Court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence, regarding which the complaint is filed. Before it can be said that any Magistrate or Court has taken cognizance of an offence It must be shown, that he has applied his mind to the facts fo .....

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