Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.82 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Japani Sahoo vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 July, 2007
While holding as above, the apex court, in paragraph 49 of the judgment in Japani Sahoo (supra), observed as follows:
Section 617 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 17 November, 2008
With regards to the submission that the statement of Jitendra Nath Trivedi could not have been relied, as he was neither examined in Court nor he presented the complaint, I am of the view that this would not make a material difference at the stage of summoning. It is noteworthy that the complaint was presented on behalf of Allahabad Bank, which is a public sector bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, which is a Central Act. Moreover it is a Government Company under section 617 of the Companies Act. Therefore, by virtue of Section 21 clause Twelfth of Indian Penal Code read with Section 2(y) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, its branch Manager, who presented the complaint, would be a "public servant" and, as such, by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 1 SCC 407 (vide paragraphs 16, 19 and 20 of the judgment) the benefit of the proviso to Section 200 CrPC i.e. exemption from examination of the complainant and the witnesses, would be available, even though Allahabad Bank (the Company) was the complainant. Accordingly, the summoning order cannot be faulted on this ground as well.
Section 21 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1