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

M.M.MIRDHE
Venu – Appellant
Versus
Krishnappa – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.V. Nagaraj Rao.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.G. Shastri.

ORDER

M.M. Mirdhe, J.- This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 (I), Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 4.12.1990 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore, in Case No. PCR 290/90.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent has remained at the time of hearing of this case.

3. The Revision Petition is admitted.

4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have heard this matter on merits today.

5. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200, Cr. P.C. against the respondent alleging that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

6. The Magistrate took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and then he dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr. P.C. on the ground that the complaint was filed on 21.8.1990 which was beyond the period of one month of arising of the cause of action under Section 138(c) of the Act. The view taken by the Magistrate is wrong. The cheque was issued by the respondent on 15.6.1990. It is alleged to have been dishonoured on 7.7.1990. The peti





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