2006 (7) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are summarised as follows: Petitioners are accused in several cases filed by the respondent. They are employees of a private limited company which is now under liquidation. Proceedings are initiated at the behest of respondent-2 under Section 200, Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) thereof against the petitioners who were former Managing Directors and Director of the wound up company, viz., Victory Glass & Industries Limited, alleging commission of offences under Section 142 of the Act. Suffice it to say that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the complaint and that was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 142(b) of the Act. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submissions. 5. Section 138 of the Act would deal with insufficiency of funds in a bank account. Section 142 would deal with taking of cognizance of the offence. Section 142(b) of the Act would specify the time limit within which a complaint is required to be filed for the offence under Section 138. Under Section 142(b), a complaint is required to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action has arisen under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 142 of the Act. The proviso was added by Act No. 55/02 with effect from 6.2.2003 enabling the complainant to file the complaint after the prescribed period if he satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause in not making the complaint within the time prescribed. On a readi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....useful. Willes, J said: I am of the same opinion. I apprehend that a tribunal which is by law invested with power to affect the property of one of Her Majesty's subjects, is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds: and that the rule is of universal application and founded on the plainest principles of justice. Now is the board in the present case such a tribunal? I apprehend it clearly is.... Byles, J said: It seems to me that the board are wrong whether they acted judicially or ministerially. I conceive they acted judicially, because they had to determine the offence, and they had to apportion the punishment as well as the remedy. That being so, a long course of decisions beginni....