ASIA METAL CORPORATION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 6.12.2001 whereby all the accused persons except the accused Yogesh Gupta have been ?discharged?. The accused persons were said to have committed the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) read with Section 141 thereof.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 (Sanjay Chaudhary) submits at the very outset that these revision petitions are not maintainable. He referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of R.P.G. Transmission Ltd. vs. Sakura Seimitsu (I) Ltd. 2005 Crl.L.J. 2862. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act were proceedings pertaining to a summons-case trial and had to be in terms of the procedure laid down in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Code?). According to the learned counsel for the respondents, this chapter did not contemplate an order of discharge as was available for Session's triable case under Section 227 of the Code or a warrant triable case under Section 239 of the Code. According to him, in such a situation, an order of discharge has to be read as an order of acquittal under Section 255 of the Code. He, therefore, contended that against an order of acquittal only an appeal would lie and consequently, these revision petitions would not be maintainable. A similar contention was raised in the case of R.P.G. Transmission Ltd. (supra) where this Court observed as under :-

(3.) On the strength of the aforesaid observations contained in the case of R.P.G. Transmission Ltd. (supra), the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present revision petitions would not be maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order discharging all the accused other than Yogesh Gupta amounts to an order of acquittal and only an appeal would lie against it.