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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1403

A.RAMAN
Kamalanathan – Appellant
Versus
Sampath – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:M. Rajasekaran, Advocate.

Judgment

1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Kancheepuram on 12.9.1992 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused under Sec.256 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The complaint is one filed under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The date of the offence is 9.12.1991 and date of complaint is 23.1.1992. The order does not show whether any process was issued to the accused, and whether the accused had entered appearance or not. It does not also read that it was the appointed day for the appearance for accused and the date fixed for trial. The order also does not show that on the date of hearing is on 12.9.1992 the accused was present. It is not stated in the order that the case was posted finally on that day. It is not also stated that the complainant has been absent on the previous hearing. Within few months of the filing of the complaint, the case has been disposed of by the Magistrate, by misusing the provisions of Sec.256 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec.256 of Code, no doubt, empowers the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, But the power has to be exercised with judicial restraint and to advance the cause of justice. But in

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