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

KERALA HIGH COURT
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar. J.
Rajan George - Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 2442 of 1998
Decided on 21-7-1998
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jaiji Itten. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.M. Suresh Babu. P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
In case of a valid reason for absence of complainant the complaint can be presented by his pleader.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190 and 200 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 138 - Complaint for offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by petitioner through pleader on last day of limitation - Complainant was not present before court as he was hospitalised - Complaint returned by Magistrate holding that complaint could not be received in absence of complainant - Impugned order was not conducive to interest of Justice court was not disabled from taking cognizance of offence when complaint was filed by a pleader in absence of complainant - Court could have not been in a position to take cognizance only on the day complaint was presented - Impugned order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 4 & 7)

       Result: Petition allowed.

       

ORDER

P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. – A complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed by the petitioner through his pleader. The complainant could not be present before the court on the day of presentation of tl1e complaint as he was hospitalised due to a motor. accident. The complaint was filed on the last day of limitation but the same was returned by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court II Ernakulam holding that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the Court to receive a complaint under Section 200 of the Code in the absence of the complainant. This order is under challenge. So, the question to be considered in this petition is whether a complaint could be presented before the Court by a pleader in the absence of the complainant.

2. Section 190 Cr. P.C, empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;(b) upon a police report of such fads and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. Section 200 Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure in case a complaint is filed before the Magistrate the Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. But the proviso to Section 200 Cr1. P.C. makes it clear that when the complaint is made in writing the Magistrate is not bound to examine the complainant and the witnesses if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint and/or if the Magistrate makes over the case for enquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192.

3. Section 142 of the Act provides thus:

"Cognizance of offences - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974)

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint in writing. made by tile payee or as the case may be the holder in due course of the cheque:

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138;

(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138."

4. It is clear from Section 142 of the Act that the court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. The present complaint is filed by the payee of the cheque. So the court is empowered to take cognizance of the same. But the complainant was not present before the court for his examination on oath. Examination of the complainant is also compulsory in a case like this before taking cognizance. It is not compulsory that cognizance should be taken on the date of presentation of the cheque (complaint?), It could be taken on any subsequent day on examination of the complainant. So, when a complaint is filed by a pleader in the absence of the complainant the court is not disabled from taking cognizance of the offence. At the most, it could be said that the court was not in position to take cognizance on the day on which the complaint was presented.

5. As already stated the complaint was presented by the pleader of the complainant. A pleader in whose favour a vakalath has been executed by the complainant is duly competent to represent the complainant. Form No. 57 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982

prescribes the form of Vakalath which is extracted hereunder.

Vakalath

In the Court of ........

C.C.

M.C.

C.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 Back to top