COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions were initiated suo motu on the fax received from the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat. Ahmedabad.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of Crl. Rev. Petition No. 136/2011 are that a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by NPR Finance Ltd. through its attorney Shri Bhupal Singh Bisht under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said complaint was assigned to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16th July, 2008 on which date the accused Babubhai Malabhai Rabari was summoned. Fresh summons were issued to the accused returnable on 30th October, 2010 and 21st January, 2011. As the complainant did not take steps, once again fresh summons were issued returnable on 5th March, 2011 on the complainant filing PF/RC/approved courier/dasti. Report on summons was not received back. Awaiting the said report on 5th March, 2011, again fresh summons were issued to the accused on filing of PF/RCV approved courier/dasti, returnable on 23rd April, 2011. Counsel for the complainant was further directed to get summons served through all possible modes of service and file the report on the next date of hearing.

(3.) REPLY affidavits by the authorized representative of the complainant and the counsel were filed. It is stated in the affidavit that in usual course of practice in cases under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act pertaining to banks and finance companies where summons in bulk are prepared, the Ahmad takes the help of attorneys/authorized representatives/executives of the complainant for preparing the summons. According to trie authorized attorney of the complainant, they had filed 11 cases and amongst thsm dasti summons/non-bailable warrants only in six cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. (i) to (vi) of the affidavit were handed over to him. However, summons/Bailable Warrants in 5 cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. (vii) to (xi) were not handed over by the Ahmad either to him or to Shri Prakash Chand. It may be noted that the present complaint related to Sr. No.10 in the affidavit and for that no summons/bailable warrants had been received by the authorized attorney of the complainant as per the affidavit.