Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
PANKAJ KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - RESPONDENT
Decided On: 10-19-01
The judgment establishes the principle that the Magistrate should accept the affidavit of the complainant and witnesses in support of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in line with the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Affidavit of Complainant - Court directs Magistrate to accept affidavit of complainant and witnesses in support of complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in line with the judgment of the Delhi High Court and directions of the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's application to take on record the affidavit of the complainant and documents in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rejected by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Magistrate's rejection of the application disregarded the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the directions of the Supreme Court, which aimed to speed up justice. The Court directed the Magistrate to apply his mind afresh to the application of the petitioner, in line with the High Court judgment and giving effect thereto.
Issues: Disregard of High Court directions by the Magistrate in rejecting the application to take on record the affidavit of the complainant and documents in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate is directed to accept the affidavit of the complainant and witnesses in support of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in accordance with the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the directions of the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Magistrate to apply his mind afresh to the petitioner's application and to give effect to the judgment of the High Court, disposing of the matter.
( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the State submits that in spite of judgment of the Delhi high Court in BIPS Systems Limited v. State and Anr. 93 (2001) Delhi Law Times 10, which clearly gives the Magistrate the power to accept affidavit of the complainant and witnesses, if any and to proceed further without recording statements under section 200, Cr. P. C. , the same is not being followed.
( 3 ) I am pained to notice such utter disregard by the Magistrate of the High court directions. The idea behind the order is to speed up justice, which again was in keeping with the directions of the Supreme Court. The Magistrate in not following the judgment of the High Court has done disservice to this case. I direct the Magistrate to apply his mind a fresh to the application of the petitioner, keeping in mind the judgment of the High Court; and giving effect thereto. With this direction Crl. M (M) 3719/2001 is disposed of. This order be sent to the Court concerned through a special messenger.
