| The Tax Publishers 2020 TaxPub(CL) 0131 (Del-HC) NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
Section 138 read with Section 142 Section 468
Where petitioner contended that complaint filed under section 138 was not maintainable because cognizance was taken by Trial Court, after prescribed period of limitation as provided in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of fact that limitation provided under section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was not applicable to instant case, petition was dismissed.
|
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account - Maintainability of complaint - Belated cognizance taken by Trail Court -
Instant petition was filed challenging summoning order passed by Trial Court and quashing of criminal complaint filed under section 138 read with section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Petitioner contended that punishment under section 138 is two years and cognizance was taken by Trial Court, after more than four years. Therefore, complaint filed by respondent/complainant was liable to be rejected. Held: Case in hand was not a warrants case, therefore, section 468(2)(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which cognizance should be taken within time mentioned therein based upon offences committed by the accused. In view of Indra Kumar Patodia And Another, limitation provided under section 468 was not applicable. Moreover, cognizance of complaint was taken by concerned Magistrate, who thereafter marked case to concerned Trial Court. Trial Court after going through contents of the complaint and evidence on record, issued summons. However, nowhere it is provided in sections 138 and 142 that summons shall be issued within the prescribed time. There was no merits in petition.
Followed:Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.. (2012) 13 SCC : 2013 TaxPub(CL) 0458 (India-SC) and Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the petitioner
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|