1993 (7) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovember 23, 1991, and the other was filed on June 28, 1991. The managing partner of the firm, after entering appearance, raised a contention in the lower court that prosecution against him is not maintainable as the firm which drew the cheques was not made an accused in the complaints. On November 6, 1992, the complainant filed a petition in each case praying for impleading the firm as additional accused. Though the petitions were stoutly resisted, the Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the complaints were filed, allowed the petitions by the impugned order. 2. Two main contentions have been advanced by learned counsel for quashing the order. The first is that since there is no provision in the Act for impleading a new accused in the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccording to the provisions of the Code, subject to any other enactment which requires a different mode of trial for such offence. The non-obstante clause in Section 142 of the Act is intended to make it clear that the three matters specified in the section have overriding effect on the provisions of the Code. The clause does not keep the provisions of the Code away from trial or inquiry into the offence under Section 138 of the Act as for all other purposes. All that Section 142 restricts is that for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 a written complaint (made by either the payee or the holder in due course) within one month of the cause of action envisaged in Clause (c) of the section is the sine qua non, whatever be the pr....