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

K.T.THOMAS
Hamsa – Appellant
Versus
Ibrahim – Respondent


ORDER

K.T. Thomas, J. - In the rapid proliferation of "cheque cases" in criminal courts with the introduction of section 138 and its allied provisions in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') any answer to the question raised in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case may have some impact. The question raised is this: Can the payee or holder in due course of a cheque file a complaint in the court as per Section 142 of the N.I. Act through his power-of-attorney holder?

2. Shri P. Vijaya Bhanu and Shri S. Vijayakumar, Advocates, argued on opposite positions. A brief statement of facts in this case may be made. A complaint has been filed in the court of a judicial magistrate of first class for the offences under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner herein as the accused. One Mohammed Syed @ Veeran Haji is the complainant in the case, but respondent herein (one Ibrahim Hajee) has signed the complaint as power-of-attorney holder of the complainant. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner. Now the petitioner has come before this Court invoking the inherent powers of the High Court envisaged in section 482 of the


















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