AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I Act') by the petitioner herein, are under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case relates to the dishonour of two cheques dated 24.02.2014 for the amounts Rs. 19,75,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- issued by the petitioner to the complainant/first respondent. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by the complainant as PW1 and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P9 from the part of the complainant, and the third party document marked as Ext.X1, to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accordingly, the petitioner, who represented the first accused company, was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo simple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....repelled by the Courts below, after embarking upon a detailed ratiocination of the evidence on record. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope for a further adjudication on the above aspects in this proceedings of revision. 5. Upon the question of law, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the entire criminal prosecution launched against the revision petitioner is legally unsustainable since the power of attorney holder of the complainant, who had filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate, had not stated anywhere in the complaint that she was having direct personal knowledge about the transactions between the complainant and the accused, which resulted in the commission of the offence alleged in the complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the initial stages of the respective cases, and not after the inaction of the accused paving the way for the original complainant to adduce evidence in the trial about the transactions which led to the offence. Thus the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions has no applicability in the present case. 7. It is true that, in the complaint filed before the Trial Court by the power of attorney holder of the complainant (wife of the proprietor of the complainant firm), it is not stated that she was having direct personal knowledge about the transactions which resulted in the commission of the crime alleged in the complaint. However, at the stage of trial, the complainant himself had appeared before the Trial Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings." 9. It is clear from the aforesaid provision of law that in the present case, the findings of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, which were upheld by the Appellate Court, are not liable to be reversed in this revision pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious aspects contained in S.465 of CrPC more particularly to deal with the expression "A failure of justice has in fact been occasioned" as contained therein. Since, the provisions contained in S.19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in S.465(1) of CrPC are pari materia, the observations made in the said decision would be relevant. "14. We have to examine S.465(1) of the Code in the above context. It is extracted below: "465. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he simile is borrowed from Lord Diplock in Town Investments Ltd. v. Deptt. of the Environment [(1977) 1 All ER 813 : 1978 AC 359 : (1977) 2 WLR 450 (HL)]). The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage." 11. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not possible to say that the act of the learned Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant, had resulted in the failure of justice. This is especially so in view of the fact that the complainant himself had adduced evidence at the stage of trial, and the petitioner exerc....