Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.67 seconds)Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 469 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr vs State Of A.P on 8 October, 2003
14. A similar question came to be considered in Bharat Damodar Kale and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 4560. It was argued that if complaint is filed within period of limitation but cognizance is not taken within such period, it would be barred by limitation. I find that Court held that if complaint was filed within period of limitation, cognizance even if taken after expiry of period of limitation, it would not be barred since for the purpose of Section 469 Cr.P.C. it is the date when complaint was filed or report was lodged and machinery was put into action. Court held in para 10 as under:
Surinder Mohan Vikal vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 February, 1978
15. Earlier also this very view was reiterated in Surinder Mohan Vikal vs. Ascharj Lal Chopra AIR 1978 SC 986.
Vinay Devanna Nayak vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd on 7 December, 2007
8. Secondly, it is well settled that limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, 1881. Act, 1881 is a special Statute. Chapter XVII was inserted by Act No. 66 of 1983 with effect from 01.04.1989 defining dishonor of cheque as an offence. The object is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business and also taking into account provisions of Section 147 compounding of offence should not normally be denied. It has been so held by Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 305.