TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndigarh. The petitioner has been supplying wire and barbed wire to the respondent on credit from time to time. The respondent also has been making payments for the supplies made to him from time to time. A sum of Rs. 52,000 was, paid by the respondent to the petitioner-company by way of five cheques as under : SI. No. Cheque No. Bank Amount (Rs.) Date of cheque 1. 608453 Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17C, Chandigarh 7,000 25-8-1989 2. 608454 -do- 10,000 25-9-1989 3. 608457 -do- 10,000 25-12-1989 4. 331383 -do- 15,000 15-1-1990 5. 608458 -do- 10,000 25-1-1990 2. All the abovesaid cheques upon having been presented to the bank were returned to the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de, and acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. The petitioner thereafter on December 29, 1993, approached the learned Magistrate by way of an application seeking the restoration of the complaint which was dismissed in default on December 16, 1993. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on December 30, 1993, vide the impugned order by holding that since the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the respondent stood acquitted, the complaint dismissed in default could not be restored, since there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the court to restore the complaint which was dismissed in defau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge or acquittal on the same ground is a final order and in the absence of any specific provision in the Code, a magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction, to restore the case. A second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar MANU/SC/0149/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 876 ; [1962] 1 Crl. LJ 770. Filing of a second complaint is not the same thing as reviving a dismissed complaint after recalling the earlier order of dismissal. The Criminal Procedure Code does not contain any provision enabling the criminal court to exercise such an inherent power. Also, what the court has to see is not whether the Code contains any provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e while acting under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned order dated December 30, 1993, passed by the learned magistrate refusing to restore the complaint dismissed in default earlier on December 16, 1993, in view of the law laid down by the apex court, therefore, cannot be said to be bad, since the magistrate had no power to order the restoration of the complaint dismissed in default by him. 11. Next comes the question whether this court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, can set aside the order dated December 16, 1993, and direct the rest....