Cognizance by an unauthorised Magistrate can be cured in good faith, and NI Act procedure prevails over Section 202 objections.

Cognizance of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint by a Magistrate lacking territorial empowerment was treated as a curable irregularity under Section 460(e) CrPC when taken in good faith, so the proceedings were not vitiated. The challenge based on Section 202(1) CrPC also failed because complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act are governed by its special procedure, including Section 145 permitting affidavit evidence, which displaces the ordinary procedural objection to that extent. The criminal proceedings were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 taken by a Magistrate lacking territorial jurisdiction was vitiated or saved by Section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the challenge based on Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could invalidate the proceedings in view of the procedure applicable to complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 taken by a Magistrate lacking territorial jurisdiction was vitiated or saved by Section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Cognizance had admittedly been taken by a Magistrate who was not empowered to do so for the relevant territorial area. The defect was examined in the light of Section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which saves proceedings where cognizance is taken erroneously and in good faith by a Magistrate not empowered by law. The Court applied the principle that such an irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings, and that prejudice is not the governing test where the statute itself declares the defect curable. On the facts, there was no allegation of bad faith.

Conclusion: The defect was a curable irregularity and did not vitiate the proceedings; the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge based on Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could invalidate the proceedings in view of the procedure applicable to complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The challenge under Section 202(1) was considered in the context of the special procedure governing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court noted that Section 145 of that Act permits the complainant's evidence on affidavit and overrides the ordinary requirement of examination under the Code to that extent. In view of that statutory framework, the objection that the cognizance was hit by Section 202(1) was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The objection under Section 202(1) was without merit and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both jurisdictional and procedural grounds, and the criminal proceedings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cognizance is taken by a Magistrate in good faith but without the requisite empowerment, Section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cures the irregularity and the proceedings are not vitiated; the special procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 also governs the complaint process.

---