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

1993 Supreme(Ker) 326

K.T.THOMAS
Hamsa – Appellant
Versus
Ibrahim – Respondent


Judgment :-

In the rapid proliferation of "cheque cases" in criminal courts with the introduction of S.138 and its allied provisions in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short" the N.I. act) any answer to the question raised in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case may have some impact. The question raised is this: Can the payee or holder in due course of a cheque file a complaint in the court as per S.142 of the N.I. Act through his

power-of-attorney holder?

2. Shri.P. Vijaya Bhanu and Shri. S. Vijayakumar, advocates, argued on opposite positions. A brief statement of "facts in this case may be made. A complaint has been filed in the court of a judicial magistrate of first class for the offences under S.138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner herein as the accused. One Mohammed Syed @ Veeran Haji is the complainant in the case, but respondent herein (one Ibrahim Hajee) has signed the complaint as power-of-attorney holder of the complainant. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner. Now the petitioner has come before this Court invoking the inherent powers of the High Court envisaged in S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short











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