Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. As regards the requirement of the complainant to have locus standi, Section 142 of the Act makes it imperative that the complainant to have the locus standi, he should be either the payee of the cheque dishonoured or the holder in due course of such cheque, in the absence of which, the Magistrate is debarred to take the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

14. We shall now analyse the rulings cited by both sides. In Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya, AIR 1960 SC 1113 : 1960 Cri LJ 1499, the Supreme Court held that the inquiry envisaged there is for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint, that is, for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process.

15. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1959 SC 843 : 1959 Cri LJ 1124, the Supreme Court held that when a complaint is made by a Court, it is not necessary for a Magistrate to examine the complainant and that neither Section 200 nor Section 202 requires a preliminary enquiry before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against the person complained against.

16. In the decision reported in Nirmaljit v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2639, the Supreme Court held that the object of such examination of the complainant is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case and the enquiry is for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint, that is for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complainant, so as to justify the issue of process.

17. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. (1973) 3 SCC 753: AIR 1972 SC 2639, the Supreme Court held as follows :-

An enquiry or investigation is ordered under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate on receipt of a complaint for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. If the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made or to be whom it has been transferred, after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of enquiry or investigation under Section 202 is of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for proceeding, he may for reasons to be recorded briefly, dismiss the complaint. If, on the contrary, the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence is of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for proceeding, he should issue process against the accused in accordance with Section 204 of the Code.

19. We, therefore, hold that the enquiry envisaged under Section 200 is for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint and also for ascertaining whether there is any evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses present, if any, to satisfy himself as to the veracity of the complainant. The object is to test whether the allegations make out a prima facie case to enable him to issue process. We are, therefore, unable to countenance the argument advanced by Mr. Sahasranaman on the scope and application of Section 200 Cr.P.C. Likewise, the argument advanced by Mr. Sahasranaman with regard to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has no basis as it is undisputed that the taking of cognizance of offence under the said Section has to precede the taking of sworn statement of the complainant and that cognizance should precede the recording of the sworn statement.