TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside premature complaint, upholds conviction, imposes fine in lieu of imprisonment.</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order that deemed the complaint premature under Section 138 of the Negotiable ... - Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case are the premature filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the subsequent setting aside of the judgment by the High Court.Premature Filing of Complaint:The respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the Act based on the issuance of a post-dated cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant demanded repayment, but the respondent did not comply. The trial court found the accused liable for punishment under Section 138. However, the High Court set aside the judgment, deeming the original complaint premature as it was filed before the expiry of the 15-day period following the notice of dishonored cheque.Legal Provisions and Interpretation:Section 142 of the Act specifies the conditions for taking cognizance of offenses under Section 138, including the timeline for filing a complaint. The compliance with clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is essential for the court to entertain a complaint. The court must distinguish between 'taking cognizance of an offense' and the mere filing of a complaint by the complainant. The court's application of mind to the facts is crucial before taking cognizance, as observed in various legal precedents cited in the judgment.Court's Decision and Rationale:The High Court's decision to dismiss the complaint as premature was based on incorrect assumptions of law and facts. The Magistrate had not taken cognizance on the date of the initial filing but did so later. The judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court, upholding the respondent's conviction under Section 138. However, considering subsequent developments where the respondent paid the due amount, the Court decided to impose a fine of &8377; 5000 instead of imprisonment, emphasizing the interests of justice.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, upholding the conviction under Section 138 of the Act, and substituting the sentence of imprisonment with a fine of &8377; 5000 to be paid within two months, with a default imprisonment clause in case of non-payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
