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

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1671

T.V.NALAWADE
Vimal Powerloom – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Agency – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared
For the Petitioner:A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, V.R. Jain, Advocate, D.R. Kale, A.P.P.

Judgment

Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed to challenge the order of issue process made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.4177/12. The challenge is made on the ground that the J.M.F.C. has not followed the procedure laid down in section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code (as amended in the year 2006). This Court was taken through copy of complaint which is filed by respondent for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court was taken through copy of verification of complainant and the order made by J.M.F.C. The order dated 9.10.2012 shows that on the basis of this verification and on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant, the J.M.F.C. made the order of issue process, summons.

3. It was submitted for the accused/petitioner that no inquiry or investigation as required in amended provision of section 202 of Cr.P.C. is made by the J.M.F.C. He relied on some reported cases, which include the case reported as (2013) 2 SCC 488, (National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz). He has relied on some orders made by this Court also in respect of ame






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