ARVIND BHAI SELARKA Vs. DILIP GOGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS revision under Section 482, Cr.PC has been filed against the order dated 15 -6 -2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 84/2002 whereby the order dated 23 -11 -2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Class -I, Durg has been affirmed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submits that since the notice was not served, the complaint is not maintainable. The objection was raised regarding registration of the case on the ground that the notice was not served on him and it was prayed that the applicant be discharged. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the complaint and declined to discharge the applicant on the ground that it will be considered only after recording evidence. The applicant preferred revision where it was contended that the notice was not served. The Courts below have examined that the notice was sent and it was refused. The Courts below found that the date is put by seal and who has put the seal is matter of recording evidence. The Courts below further noted that the applicant/accused has not disputed that he has not issued the cheque. The Courts below also considered the decision in case of Ashok Kumar Yashwant Badeve v. Surendra Madhav Rao Nighojakar and Anr., reported in .