Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.55 seconds)Section 143 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 147 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004
6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and
Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted
25 | P a g e
the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no
inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the
issue of summons. This does not affect the power of
the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit
the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the
court’s notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the
complaint.
Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004
6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and
Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted
25 | P a g e
the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no
inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the
issue of summons. This does not affect the power of
the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit
the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the
court’s notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the
complaint.
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
21 | P a g e
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 12. 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 13. The court cannot add
words to a statute or read words into it which are not there14.