V APPA RAO Vs. RAJASEKAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in Crl.M.P.No.2938 of 1996 in C.C.No.4869 of 1995, dated 26.8.1996 declining to discharge the petitioner/ accused from the proceedings initiated under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent.

(2.) BASING upon the failure to pay the amount demanded in legal notice dated 7.8.1995, given by the learned counsel for the respondent, since the cheque given by the petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.10,00,000 was bounded by his banker after banking negotiations, for insufficiency of funds, proceedings under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have not been initiated under Sub -sec.(C) of Sec.142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, according to the petitioner before the trial Court and therefore, the complaint lodged by him is but of time and thereby, it has become incompetent to be sustained in law. On being resisted the same, learned trial Magistrate rejected the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that the proceedings under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the petitioner, were filed first before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and as he had refused to entertain the same for want of jurisdiction, it was represented before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, who again declined to accept it and returned and on representation, again before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, it was returned for presentation before proper court, with the result, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was approached and directions were obtained for the presentation of the complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, and accordingly, the complaint was lodged on 26.9.1995 and having accepted the said facts, the learned trial Magistrate rejected the petition for discharge by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved at this, the accused has filed this revision challenging the property and legality of the said order.

(3.) MR .C. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the complaint/respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the return made by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate in his own handwriting with signature, though not supported by the court seal of that Court on 20.9.1995, the petition filed by the complainant subsequently before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.9.1995 and the consequent order, would in all purview, go to show the fact that, the complaint was originally filed before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate on 20.9.1995 itself and followed by its return, represented before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate and when returned by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, it was again represented before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate who returned it and finally, taking the matter to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by filing the petition to get the remedy of relief provided under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and rightly, at the behest of the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the proceedings were initiated before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate and after issuing process to the accused, charges were framed and the trial commenced and consequently, the witnesses on the side of the prosecution were almost over as examined and it was at this stage, a petition for discharge of the accused for want of jurisdiction was filed, but however, it was rejected by the learned trial Magistrate and therefore, everything was done within the time and the complaint has not been filed out of time as provided under Sec.142 of the Act the therefore, the learned counsel has justified the impugned order.