TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and conspiracy disclosed a prima facie case sufficient for issue of process under the criminal procedure provisions governing complaints. (ii) Whether the private complaint alleging forgery was barred by the prohibition on cognizance for offences relating to documents produced in court proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and conspiracy disclosed a prima facie case sufficient for issue of process under the criminal procedure provisions governing complaints.
Analysis: At the stage of inquiry on a complaint, the magistrate is concerned only with whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not with proof for conviction. If the material before the magistrate consists of oral and documentary evidence capable of supporting the complaint, process cannot be refused merely because the principal witness has not been examined, unless the evidence is self-contradictory or inherently unreliable. Here, the receipt, the indemnity bond, the supporting witnesses, and the contemporaneous correspondence provided material capable of supporting the allegation of entrustment and subsequent withholding of the shares.
Conclusion: A prima facie case was made out and the refusal to issue process was not justified; this issue is in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the private complaint alleging forgery was barred by the prohibition on cognizance for offences relating to documents produced in court proceedings.
Analysis: The statutory bar applies only when the alleged offence is committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in the very proceeding before the court whose complaint is required. A document shown to police during investigation ordered under the criminal procedure provisions is not, by that fact alone, produced in a judicial proceeding. Likewise, a document merely shown to counsel for verification of copies does not amount to production in the relevant court proceeding so as to attract the bar.
Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by the statutory restriction on cognizance; this issue is against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the complainant's challenge in the criminal breach of trust matter and rejected the objection based on the cognizance bar in the forgery matter, resulting in one appeal being allowed and the connected counter-appeal failing.
Ratio Decidendi: At the pre-process stage, a magistrate may refuse a complaint only when the evidence is inherently untrustworthy or discloses no sufficient ground for proceeding, and the cognizance bar for document-related forgery applies only when the offending document is produced or given in evidence in the very proceeding for which the court's complaint is required.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
