ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KESHVANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant-company has been pro-secuting the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jammu, alleging the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 24-8-1996 solely on the ground that the complainant was absent. Appellant-company filed an appeal in challenge of the said order of acquittal before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir with leave but that appeal was dismissed. This appeal is against the said judgment of the High Court.

(3.) The complaint was based on a cheque issued by the respondent towards amounts allegedly due from him ranging to a little above eight lacs of rupees. Facts, which are not disputed for the present appeal, show that appellant-company was represented in the trial Court by one Puneet Aggarwal with a power of attorney of the company. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and after examining Puneet Aggarwal on oath, issued summons to the respondent pursuant to which he appeared in Court. As the trial proceeded, Puneet Aggarwal and another person were examined as prosecution witnesses and the case was posted for further evidence to 23-8-1996. On that day the complainant was absent and the counsel for the accused pressed for dismissal of the complaint. However, the Magistrate posted the case to the next day, but on that day also the complainant and his counsel were absent. Then the Magistrate recorded the order of acquittal of the accused under S. 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (which is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir even now. It will hereinafter be referred to as 'the old Code').