https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352575 A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act filed within limitation and later returned for presentation before the proper court was treated as covered by Section 142-A, applied retrospectively, so the interval between return and refiling did not create a limitation bar. The challenge to the Magistrate's summons order also failed because the complainant's representative was examined before process was issued, which was treated as sufficient compliance with the inquiry requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional challenge accordingly failed, and the order issuing process was sustained. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352575 A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act filed within limitation and later returned for presentation before the proper court was treated as covered by Section 142-A, applied retrospectively, so the interval between return and refiling did not create a limitation bar. The challenge to the Magistrate's summons order also failed because the complainant's representative was examined before process was issued, which was treated as sufficient compliance with the inquiry requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional challenge accordingly failed, and the order issuing process was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352575