AJAY DHIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has been summoned as an accused in complaint case no. 2245/01 under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act titled M/s Royal Trading company v. Ajay Dhir and in this petition, he has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 11th August, 2005. The grounds taken for quashing of the impugned order of summoning are that the attorney of respondent No. 2, proprietary concern cannot depose and to support this stand, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the apex Court rendered in case of Janki vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind bank Ltd. and Ors. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the summoning order is bad in law as it discloses nonapplication of mind and for this proposition, reliance has been placed on the case Pepsi food Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial magistrate and Ors. The next contention of the petitioner is that the affidavit filed by way of evidence has not been duly executed and so is not admissible. To state so, reliance has been placed upon case of M/s miraj Marketing Corporation v. M/s vishaka Engg. and Anr.

(2.) WHEREAS, on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the case of M/s Shankar finance and Investment v. State of Andhra pradesh and Ors. to contend that a power of attorney holder can depose and it is pointed out that the judgment in the case of Janki Vashdeo (Supra) has been considered and distinguished in the latest judgment of the Apex Court. It is submitted on behalf of the contesting respondent that the alleged defect in the affidavit filed is a mixed question of law and fact and the same cannot be pre-judged at this stage and that the summoning order is perfectly legal and there is nothing wrong in it.

(3.) NOTHING else is urged by either side.