ASEEM SHABANALI MERCHANT Vs. BRIJ MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Shaikh submitted that the present appellant happens to be the Director of the Company which received cheques in question, which bounced. Answering the query, he submitted that the present appellant was not Director of the said Company when complaint in question was filed. He further submitted that on 5th march, 2001 and 7th March 2001 all the directors were no more alive, because they had committed suicide. Answering the query shri Shaikh submitted that there were only three Directors of the complainant Company and after trie said unfortunate episode, the present appellant was the only serving Director. Shri Shaikh submitted that on the date when the said complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted, i. e. on 7-9-2002 the complainant arid his Advocate were absent. It is his submission that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Azeem v. A. Venkatesh; reported in 2003 Bom CR (Cri)146, the complaint should not have been dismissed. He prayed that leave be granted and appeal against the acquittal be admit-ted for final hearing.

(2.) SHRI Samir Vaidya opposed this prayer and submitted that the said judgment of supreme Court is applicable for solitary absence only. He submitted that on 7-9-2002 Advocate for the complainant did not even inform the Court that the complainant and other Directors had committed suicide, leave aside presentation of application for permitting the legal heirs of the complainant to continue the prosecution. He submitted that this is not a fit matter in which leave needs to be granted.

(3.) CHAPTER XX of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 embodies procedure prescribed for conducting the trials for summons case by a Magistrate. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 subsection (1) provides that: