High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Supreme Court Steps In to Rectify "Lapse in Providing Proper Legal Guidance" in Dishonoured Cheques Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to rectify what it termed as a "lapse in providing proper legal guidance" to the appellant. The ruling came in the case of Bijoy Shankar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., and it involved a jurisdictional dispute regarding dishonoured cheques amounting to Rs. 45,20,000.

Bijoy Shankar Mishra had initially filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who ruled they lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Mishra's subsequent appeal to the High Court also resulted in a dismissal.

"We are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code," said the bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. "The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has passed the order without realizing the legal consequences. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the appellant – Bijoy Shankar Mishra."

The Supreme Court emphasized that "procedural defect/lapse had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." It further noted that "technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice," citing a recent judgment for this reasoning.

The Court clarified that its ruling was based on the "unique facts and circumstances" of the case and "should not be treated as a precedent."

The Supreme Court's decision has set aside both the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and the impugned order of the High Court, directing that the trial will continue in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

The case highlights the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring that procedural shortcomings do not obstruct the course of justice, reinforcing the principle that the law exists to serve substantial justice above all.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2023

BIJOY SHANKAR MISHRA vs HE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Latest Legal News