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

1990 Supreme(Del) 247

SANTOSH DUGGAL
CUCUSAN FOILS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Kamini Lao, R.P.Lao, Rajesh Batra

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the proper procedure for a Magistrate when a complaint alleging a non-cognizable offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is received—whether cognizance must be taken and the complainant and witnesses examined before directing investigation?

What is the legality of a Magistrate straightaway sending a complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) in non-cognizable offence cases, and must Chapters XV (Sections 200-203) be followed instead?

What is the correct sequence of actions for a Magistrate after taking cognizance in a complaint case—examination of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200, followed by Section 202 enquiry or investigation, or can the Magistrate order investigation beforehand?


SANTOSH DUGGAL J.

( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) raises a question as to the procedure required to be followed by a Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, alleging commission of an offence.

( 2 ) A brief narrative of the facts would facilitate having a proper perspective of the issue involved. The petitioner is company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (for short the Company ). A complaint was filed by the Company s authorised representative under Section 138 cf the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that M/s. Modern Packers, arraigned as accused No. I in the complaint, was a proprietary concern of Ch. Ram Singh, shown as accused No. 2, and that a cheque was issued in the name of accused No. 1 for a sum of Rs-32,666. 50 on 15th June 1989 duly signed by accused No. 2 towards payment of the price of goods but on presentment the said cheque was received back with banker s endorsement refer to drawer . It was alleged that the cheque had been dishonoured owing to the fact that the account of the accused in the bank did not contain sufficient amount to meet the same. A registered notice was issued th


























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