TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the petitioner could be impleaded as an additional accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the statutory requirements of notice and limitation were not complied with.
Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is founded on a person-specific offence and must contain the factual allegations constituting every ingredient of the offence, including disclosure of the drawer and compliance with the statutory notice procedure. The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to bypass the special scheme under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the petitioner was not originally arraigned as an accused, no statutory notice had been issued to him, and the impleading application was allowed long after the complaint was filed, the addition of the petitioner as an accused was contrary to the statutory procedure.
Conclusion: The impleadment of the petitioner as an accused was invalid and was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cognizance and arraignment must conform to the special statutory procedure, and Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to implead a new accused in derogation of the mandatory requirements of Sections 138 and 142.
TaxTMI 
