S. Talapatra DECISION
S. Talapatra, J.
1. By means of this petition filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the order dated 21.12.2018 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, NI Act) read with Section 420 IPC, has been challenged on the solitary ground that cognizance was taken in contravention of the provisions of Section 142 and Section 138(c) of the NI Act. According to the petitioner, the cognizance as taken by the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 is beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed by Section 142(b) of the NI Act.
2. But another question which appears to be ancillary but pertinent in this case is whether taking cognizance of an offence for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of fund punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, with the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC can be maintained inasmuch as Section 5 of the Cr.P.C. provides that nothing contained in the Code (Cr.P.C.) shall, in absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. There cannot be any amount of doubt that for inquiring the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NIC Act, a special provision in respect of limitation has been carved out and that is quite distinguishable from the procedural prescription as laid down in the Cr.P.C.
3. Even though Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, otherwise not dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of investigating, inquiring into, trying or dealing with such offences. The provisions of Section 138 and other procedural provisions make the inquiry quite different and distinguishable from the procedure as prescribed under the Cr.P.C. It lays down a special procedure but, expressly, does not exclude the procedure under the Cr.P.C.
4. In Bhim Sen Vs. State of U.P., reported in MANU/SC/0136/1955 : AIR 1955 SC 435 the apex court had occasion to hold that the enactment must be clear and limitation of the jurisdiction must be confined to a particular field. In AR Antulay Vs. Ramdas reported in MANU/SC/0082/1984 : (1984) 2 SCC 500, the apex court had occasion to hold that the Cr.P.C. is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiring into and trial of cases unless there is a special provision in any other statute by laying down distinct provisions, the code cannot be displaced.
5. In Gangula Ashok........