TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with the jurisdiction to try the cases relating to N.I. Act arising from Khamtarai, Abhanpur, D.D. Nagar and Aamanaka Police Stations and the cognizance of the alleged offence ought to have been taken by Ms. Namrata Norge, J.M.F.C. Raipur who has the jurisdiction to try the cases relating to N.I. Act arising from Pandri, Rakhi, Azad Chowk and Saraswati Nagar Police Stations. Since, the alleged offence has arisen from Police Station Pandri, therefore, Ms. Neha Usendi, J.M.F.C. Raipur could not have taken cognizance of aforesaid offence against the petitioner. The said objection was rejected by learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 14/03/2019 in view of Section 460(e) of the Cr.P.C. and further holding that since the trial is a summon t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Both the Courts below have partly agreed with the petitioner/accused that cognizance of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act could not have been taken by Ms. Neha Usendi, J.M.F.C. Raipur as she was conferred with the jurisdiction to try the cases based on N.I. Act arising from Khamtarai, Abhanpur, D.D. Nagar and Aamanaka Police Stations and the cognizance of offence ought to have been taken by Ms. Namrata Norge, J.M.F.C. Raipur as the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner/accused has arisen from Police Station Pandri and it lies within her jurisdiction, but both the Courts below have categorically held that taking cognizance of offence against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held as under:- "Where a Magistrate of the First Class, though not empowered to do so, takes in good faith cognizance of offence under S. 190(1)(a) and (b), the defect in the absence of any prejudice to the accused is cured by S. 529. And further the defect will be held as cured by a bona fide decision given by the Magistrate as to the existence of the power when objection thereto is taken, even assuming without deciding that the "taking of cognizance" was then continuing." 9. Similarly, in the matter of Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116, their Lordships of the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) have clearly held in cases covered by Section 529 of the Cr.P.C., 1898 (now, Section 460 of Cr.P.C., 197....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Willie (William) Slaney (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case, admittedly, Ms. Neha Usendi, J.M.F.C. Raipur has taken cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. though she was not empowered to do so in light of provision contained under Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act read with the work division memo dated 02/08/2018 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is not alleged by the petitioner that jurisdiction of taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. was exercised by Ms. Neha Usendi, J.M.F.C. Raipur in bad faith, though it has been argued that matter is not covered by Section 460(e) of the Cr.P.C., but in my considered opinion, co....