Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 143 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004
As
held in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra),
the Magistrate is deluded with the power to revisit the order of issue of
process, except to the limited extent that the Court has no jurisdiction to
try the case.
Section 258 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 204 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004
As
held in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra),
the Magistrate is deluded with the power to revisit the order of issue of
process, except to the limited extent that the Court has no jurisdiction to
try the case.
M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017
20. Section 143 of the Act mandates that the provisions of summary
trial of the Code shall apply "as far as may be" to trials of complaints
under Section 138. Section 258 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to
stop the proceedings at any stage for reasons to be recorded in writing
and pronounce a judgment of acquittal in any summons case instituted
otherwise than upon complaint. Section 258 of the Code is not
applicable to a summons case instituted on a complaint. Therefore,
Section 258 cannot come into play in respect of the complaints filed
under Section 138 of the Act. The judgment of this Court in Meters and
Instruments (supra) in so far as it conferred power on the Trial Court
to discharge an accused is not good law. Support taken from the words
"as far as may be" in Section 143 of the Act is inappropriate. The
words "as far as may be" in Section 143 are used only in respect of
applicability of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code and the summary
procedure to be followed for trials under Chapter XVII. Conferring
power on the court by reading certain words into provisions is
impermissible. A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge
nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policy-
making might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation
and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation. The Judge‟s
duty is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it to meet the
Judge‟s idea of what justice requires. The court cannot add words to a
statute or read words into it which are not there.