LexINDRA KUMAR PATODIA & ANR. versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 129 INDRA KUMAR PATODIA & ANR. v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1837 of 2012 etc.) NOVEMBER 22, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) A B Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 142 - Complaint under - Without signature - But verified by the complainant - Maintainability - Held: The complaint without C signature is maintainable, when such complaint is verified by the complainant and process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification - The complaint is required necessarily to be in writing and need not be signed - Legislative intent was that 'writing' does not pre-suppose that the same has to be signed D - 'Signature' within the meaning of 'writing' would be adding words to the Section, which the legislature did not contemplate - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 2 (d) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - ss. 3(56) and 3(65) - Interpretation of Statutes. E Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of non-obstante clause - Held: While interpreting non-obstante clause, the Court is required to find out the extent to which the legislature intended to exclude a provision and the context in which such clause is used. F Words and Phrases - 'Complaint in writing' - Meaning of, in the context of s. 142(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The question for consideration in the present appeals was whether the complaint u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, without signature of the complainant is maintainable, when such complaint is 129 G H 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after verification. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The complaint u/s.138 of Negotiable B Instruments Act, 1881, without signature, is maintainable, when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is c maintainable. [Para 19] [147-E-F] 1.2 A non obstante clause has to be given restricted meaning and when the section containing the said clause does not refer to any particular provisions which intends to over-ride, but refers to the provisions of the statute 0 generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the whole Act and stands all alone by itself. There requires to be a determination as to which provisions answers the description and which does not. WhilP. interpreting the non obstante clause, the Court is required to find out the E extent to which the legislature intended to do so and the context in which the non obstante clause is used. [Para 12] [141-E-G] 1.3 Section 2(d) Cr.P .C. provides that the complaint needs to be oral or in writing. The non obstante clause F in Section 142 of the Act, when it refers to Cr.P.C, only excludes the oral part in such definition. Thus, the non obstante clause in s. 142(a) is restricted to exclude two things only from Cr.P.C. i.e. (a) exclusion of oral complaints and (b) exclusion of cognizance on complaint G by anybody other than the payee or the holder in due course. [Paras 12 and 13] [141-G-H; 142-A] 1.4 Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides that a Magistrate can take cognizance on a complaint which constitutes such H an offence irrespective of who had made such complaint INDRA KUMAR PATODIA v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES 131 LTD. or on a police report or upon receiving information from A any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge. Non obstante clause, when it refers to the core, restricts the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance only on a complaint by a payee· or the holder in due course and excludes the rest of Section 190 Cr.P.C. In other words, none of the other provisions of the Cr.P.C. are excluded by the said non obstante clause, hence, the Magistrate is therefore required to follow the procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C., once he has taken B the complaint of the payee/holder in due course and c record statement of the complainant and such other witnesses as present at the said date. Here, Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the same is required to be signed by the complainant as well as the witnesses making the statement. [Para13] [142-A-D] D 1.5 Mere presentation of the complaint is only the first step and no action can be taken unless the process of verification is complete and, thereafter, the Magistrate has to consider th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.