Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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