LexASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. versus KESHVANAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. v. KESHVANAND DECEMBER 16, 1997 B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 2(yKomplainant-Meaning of-Not defined in the C Code-However, words and expressions defined in Pe11al Code can be used for the purposes of the Code-Penal Code defines "perso11s" to include a company-So a company can be a complainant as per the new Code-Penal Code, 1860, Section 11. SectiollS 200, 203, 256 and 249---Filing of complaint-Magistrate to D examine the complainant on oath mandatorily before taking cog- nizance-Magistrate to dismiss the complaint only after considering the 'state- ments 011 oath-However, the examination of complainant can be dispensed with only when a public servant in exercise of his public duties files a complaillt or a complaint by a court-Magistrate has jurisdiction to dismiss E the Complaint when the complainant is absent. Section 256 and Chapter XV-Complaint filed by a company-Diff erellt persons authorized on behalf of company to represent die company in court-Held, different persons may represent such compa~zy at different stage-However, it is open to the complainant company to seek pennission F of the court for sending any other person to represent the company in court-No Magistrate shall insist that the particular person whose statement was taken on oath at the first i11Stance alone can represent the com- pan~ os it ion under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 also same-Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Sections 247 and 259. G Sections 249 and 256-Non-appearance of complai11ant on a particular date in court-Magistrate, held, not justified in acquitting the accused unless the presence of accused on that date was necessary-Discretion to acquit the accused must be exercised judicially and f airly-Wlzen the complainant and other witnesses had been examined, acquittal of accused not justified in the H guise of absence of the complainant-Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Sec- 500 - ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD. v. KESHVANAND 501 lions 247 and 259. Sections 386, 401 and 247-Distinction between appellate and revisional jwisdictio11 of the cowt-Appellate cowt can reappraise the evidence and is free to reach. its own co11clusion on evidence untrammeled by any findings of the Ilia/ cowt-Revisional jurisdiction is supe1visory confined to the legality and propriety of the findings-Revisional coult may also see whether the subordinate cowt has kept within the bounds of its jwisdictio11 or has failed to exercise jwisdiction vested in it. A B The appellant company prosecuted the respondent in the court of Judicial Magistrate for an offence committed under Section 138 of the C Negotiable Instruments Act. After the examination of authorised person on - behalf of the company and other witnesses, on a particular day of hearing, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused on the ground of absence of complainant. Appeal filed before the High Court with leave, was also dismissed by it. Hence this appeal by the company. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The word "complainant" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether old or new. Any person can set the law in motion except in cases where the statute has specifically provided other· wise. The word "person" is defined in the Indian Penal Code (Section 11) as including "any company or association of body of persons whether incorporated or not". By virtue of Section 2(y) of the new Code words and expressions used in that Code but not defined therein can have the same meaning assigned to them in the Penal Code. Then when the word "person" D E is specifically defined in the Penal Code as including a company that F definition can normally be adopted for understanding the scope of the word "complainant". However, the definition clauses subsumed in Section 2 of the new Code contains the opening key words that such definitions are to be adopted "unless the context otherwise requires". Therefore to ascer- tain whether a company or association of persons or body corporate can G be a complainant as per the new Code as for all practical purpose, looking at different contexts envisaged therein. (5111-C-F] 1.2. Chapter XV of the new Code contains provisions for lodging complaints with Magistrates. Section 200 as the starting provision of that chapter enjoins 11n the Magistrate, who takes cognizance of an offence on H 502
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.