MUHAMMED BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the import and consequence of the amendment to S.202 CrPC by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23/06/06 by which the words 'and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' were introduced Is the stipulation couched in above language directory or mandatory Does that stipulation apply at all to prosecutions under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act If the sworn statement of all necessary witnesses cited by the complainant is recorded under S.200 CrPC and the materials are sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, should the learned Magistrate still proceed to the stage of S.202 CrPC and conduct a further enquiry What would be the content and scope of such an extended enquiry in such circumstances When does the enquiry under S.200 CrPC end and the enquiry under S.202 CrPC commence Is the boundary line between the enquiry under S.200 CrPC and 202 CrPC so firm, definite, stable and specific These questions arise for consideration in these cases.

(2.) These questions have been raised in several similar matters. Counsel were requested to advance detailed arguments. All counsel who wanted to be heard on the question were given opportunity to advance their arguments. Advocate D. Kishore was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae also. By this common order, I propose to dispose of only Crl MC No. 292 of 2008 and Crl MC No. 2247 of 2008.

(3.) To the relevant and vital facts first. Crl MC No. 292 of 2008 is filed by the accused who faces indictment in a prosecution under S.138 of the NI Act. The short grievance raised by him is that no enquiry under S.202 CrPC as amended has been conducted by the learned Magistrate before process was issued to him under S.204 CrPC. The learned Magistrate was satisfied by recording the statement of the complainant under S.200 CrPC. The same was received by an affidavit filed under S.145 of the NI Act. According to the petitioner, cognizance could not, at any rate, have been taken, after the amendment came into force, against a person resident outside the jurisdiction of the Court without and before conducting an enquiry under S.202 CrPC. He prays that the proceedings against him may hence be quashed.