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

H.N.NARAYAN, MANJULA CHELLUR
Jimmy Jahangir Madan – Appellant
Versus
Bolly Cariyappa Hindley and Others – Respondent


ORDER

B.N. Narayan, J. - This reference is made under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act, by His Lordship Justice S.R. Bannurmath for deciding three questions formulated by him in view of the law of general importance involved in the reference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has placed this matter before this Bench for appropriate orders.

2. The questions which are referred for our consideration are:

(1) In a proceeding, initiated under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the death of the complainant, whether any other person could be permitted to prosecute the complaint and under what provisions of Cr. P.C.?

(2) If it is held that any person could be permitted to prosecute the complaint who is the competent person who could be permitted to prosecute the complaint?

(3) Whether that person has to prosecute the complaint personally or whether he could be permitted to prosecute the complaint through a power of attorney holder?

3. These questions arise in the backdrop of certain facts which came up for consideration in the said revisions. One Mrs. Bolly Cariappa Hindley - an Indian Christian presented a complaint under Section 200, Cr. P.C. against the accused persons i











































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