P RAVINDER REDDY Vs. NALAMALAPUR SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation for the first respondent, although the first respondent entered appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the case offends Section 200 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to acquittal.

(2.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.460 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The docket order, dated 04.12.2009, shows that the sworn statement of the de facto complainant was received and the case was taken on file under Section 138 of the Act. The docket thus evidently shows that the sworn statement of the de facto complainant was not recorded.

(3.) Section 200 Cr.P.C. envisages that before a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on complaint, he shall examine the complainant on oath. Thus, examination of the complainant is sine quo non for taking a private complaint on file. Admittedly, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate did not do so, but, accepted the sworn affidavit of the de facto complainant and had taken the case on file. As rightly submitted by Sri E.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking the case on file by the learned Magistrate without recording the sworn statement of the complainant was violative of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable.