SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Kar) 506

R.B.NAIK
Chandrashekharappa – Appellant
Versus
Sharanabasappa – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sanket M. Yenagi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: F.V. Patil, Amicus Curiae.

Judgment

1. The order of issue of process for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is challenged in the present petition on the ground that the complaint is presented by the power of attorney holder and he has stepped into the witness-box and has given sworn statement and on the basis of the averments in the compliant and the sworn statement and the material made available, the learned Magistrate directed issue of process.

2. Having regard to the said facts, the points that arise for my consideration in the present petition are:

1. Whether a power of attorney holder can present a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

2. Whether the power of attorney holder can prosecute the criminal Proceedings without permission under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

3. The first point need not detain me long since it is already held by me in the case of Om Shakthi Scheuled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Minority Credit Co-operative Society Limited v M. Venkatesh (2008(2) Kar. L.J. 486: 2008(1) AIR Kar. R. 311), that a power of attorney holder can present a complaint.

4. As regards the second point in the p









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top