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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.S.Ramanathan, J.
United Travel Services —Petitioner
versus
PGC Textiles Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
Crl.O.P. No.2125 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided on 11.2.2015

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Abdukumar Rajaratnam for
M/s.Vijayalakshmi K. Rajaratnam, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant is not required to examine himself twice, one after filing complaint and one after summoning of accused.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 145(2)—Dishonour of cheque— On application of prosecution or accused, Court may summon or examine any person giving evidence on affidavit examining as to facts contained therein—Magistrate has not proceeded to hear prosecution and take all evidence and accused were questioned and case was adjourned—It cannot be stated that case has gone to stage section of 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—There was no necessity to recall and re-examine complainant after summoning of accused unless Magistrate passes specific order as to why complainant is to be recalled—When case has not gone to stage of section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Magistrate has no other option to except to return case for presentation before Court which has jurisdiction bank which dishonoured cheque—Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 12 to 16)

       Result: Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

R.S.Ramanathan, J.—The complainant in C.C.No.2303 of 2013 on the file of the Fast Track court No.II/Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore is the petitioner.

2. The petitioner/complainant filed the above complaint against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, chennai and the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording sworn statement, took cognizance of the case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and transferred the case to Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai and thereafter, summons was issued to the respondents and they entered appearance and the case was periodically adjourned. On 18.12.2014, the Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai, passed an order returning the case records to the complainant/petitioner herein stating that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Versus State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129: 2014 (3) Crimes 162 (SC): 2014 (5) Supreme 641: 2014(3) CCC 164, the Court has no jurisdiction. This order is challenged in this petition.

3. Mr.Abdukumar Rajaratnam, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai, without properly appreciating the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129: 2014 (3) Crimes 162 (SC): 2014 (5) Supreme 641: 2014(3) CCC 164. supra, the provision of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also the procedure to be followed in summons case, erred in returning the papers for presentation before the proper Court. He submitted that the cheques were drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruppur Main Branch, Tiruppur, and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129: 2014 (3) Crimes 162 (SC): 2014 (5) Supreme 641: 2014(3) CCC 164. supra, the case has to be filed before the Court which has jurisdiction over the Bank which returned the cheques on the ground of insufficient funds. However, he submitted that the learned Magistrate without properly appreciating Paragraph 22 of the judgment reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129: 2014 (3) Crimes 162 (SC): 2014 (5) Supreme 641: 2014(3) CCC 164. supra, erred in returning the papers and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when the proceeding has gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the same Court shall retain the case. He submitted that in this case, admittedly, sworn statement of the complainant was taken by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter, cognizance was taken and after the respondents appeared and were questioned, the Magistrate has to direct the accused to cross-examine the complainant whose affidavit was already taken while taking cognizance of the case and therefore, the case has gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and therefore, the Court is competent to retain the case and there is no need to transfer the case to the other Court. In other words, he submitted that once the sworn statement was recorded while taking cognizance of a private complaint and summons was issued to the accused and accused denied the charge, the next step is to call upon the accused to cross-examine the complainant whose affidavit was already taken by treating the same as chief examination and therefore, the trial has commenced or the proceeding has gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after the accused denied the charge and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case need not be transferred. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in matter of Indian Bank Association and others Versus Union of India and others, (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 590 and relied upon Parag

























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