https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287643 Proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed on the basis of an alleged prior instruction not to present the cheque, because that disputed factual defence did not appear in the complaint or supporting documents and could not be accepted at the threshold in inherent-jurisdiction proceedings. The objection that the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked power to take cognizance or try the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure also failed, because section 142(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act contains a non obstante clause and expressly permits trial by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, overriding the general fine-limit in section 29(2) of the Code. The complaint was held maintainable before the Metropolitan Magistrate. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287643 Proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed on the basis of an alleged prior instruction not to present the cheque, because that disputed factual defence did not appear in the complaint or supporting documents and could not be accepted at the threshold in inherent-jurisdiction proceedings. The objection that the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked power to take cognizance or try the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure also failed, because section 142(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act contains a non obstante clause and expressly permits trial by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, overriding the general fine-limit in section 29(2) of the Code. The complaint was held maintainable before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287643