NEERAV HATHISHAH Vs. ANIL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Court of II ASJ, Fast Track Ashoknagar in Cr. Revision No. 1 of 2010 setting aside the order dated 25.11.2009 whereby, the plea was recorded under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act") by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Chanderi in Cr. Case No. 381 of 2007 and directing the trial court for reconsideration about the cognizance.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order has submitted that the order passed by the learned ASJ is contrary to law as the court has ignored the provisions of section 139 and 142 of the N.I. Act. The counsel further contends that the order of cognizance dated 17.7.2007 was not challenged by the respondent -accused before the competent court, as a result, that order attained finality, owing to which, the respondent/accused could not challenge the order of plea recorded on 25.11.2009 whereby, the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act was leveled against the respondent. Counsel further pleads that the N.I. Act is a special law wherein procedure has been prescribed for taking cognizance of offence under the said Act. Learned counsel inviting attention to Section 142 of the N.I. Act has further contended that the cognizance was taken by learned trial court on the basis of criminal complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant and the order dated 17.07.2007 was passed. In such circumstances, the respondent/accused ought to have challenged the said order. Nonetheless, it was not done so. The counsel further contends that under Section 139 of the Act, there is a provision of presumption regarding the valid consideration of cheque. Learned counsel placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Rajkumar Khurana Vs. NCT Delhi : 2009(4) MPLJ 151 and Steel Tubes of India Vs. Steel Authority of India : 2006(1) MPLJ 194 has argued that the order dated 25.11.2009 of plea recorded passed by the learned trial court was just and proper. There was no need for the revisional court to interfere in the said order. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.