TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Validity of complaint under Section 138 upheld, emphasizing timeliness. Magistrate competent to take cognizance. No specific filing period.</h1> <h3>Mahendra Agarwal Versus Gopi Ram Mahajan</h3> Mahendra Agarwal Versus Gopi Ram Mahajan - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Competency of the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 138 of the Act.3. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 142 of the Act regarding the filing of a complaint.Issue 1: Validity of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that two cheques were issued by the accused, one of which was honored while the other was returned unpaid. A notice was sent to the accused, but no payment was made within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The accused contended that the complaint did not specify the date of notice receipt and argued that the complaint was premature. However, the court found that the acknowledgment of the notice indicated the date of receipt, and the cognizance was taken after 15 days. The court cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that the mere presentation of the complaint does not mean cognizance has been taken, and a complaint can be premature but still valid.Issue 2: Competency of the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 138 of the Act:The accused argued that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance as there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 138. The court analyzed the timeline of events and found that cognizance was taken after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the notice, as required by law. The court clarified that the failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days enables the court to entertain a complaint, and the distinction between filing a complaint and taking cognizance was crucial. Therefore, the court dismissed the argument regarding the Magistrate's competency to take cognizance.Issue 3: Interpretation of the provisions of Section 142 of the Act regarding the filing of a complaint:The counsel for the complainant relied on a previous case to support the contention that the cognizance was taken within the legal timeframe. The court examined the provisions of Section 142 and emphasized that no specific period is prescribed before which a complaint must be filed. It stated that if a complaint is filed prematurely without disclosing the cause of action, the court may not take cognizance until the cause of action arises. The court clarified that the filing of a complaint and taking cognizance are distinct actions, and in this case, the cognizance was taken after the required period. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, directing the trial court to send back the record promptly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
