ANU MEHTA Vs. GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 24032 of 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by which the Learned Magistrate conducted enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued process against the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears from the materials on record that the Learned Magistrate considered the petition of complaint filed by the opposite pCy and issued process against the petitioner on 26.09.2011 in the Complaint Case No. 24032 of 2011. It further appears from the materials on record that the petitioner challenged the said order dated 26.09.2011 before this court by filing criminal revision being CRR No. 100 of 2012. The said criminal revision was disposed of by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia on 13 -03 -2013 by setting aside the order of issuing process by the Learned Magistrate and by giving direction to the Learned Magistrate to hold an enquiry within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within one year from the date of receipt of the order of the High Court. It also appears from the record that the Learned Magistrate conducted the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thereby the Learned Magistrate issued the process on 14 -06 -2013. The said order dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Learned Magistrate has been challenged before this court by the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the opposite party has pointed out from the materials on record that the affidavit submitted by one witness, that is, Dinesh Mehta is not the authoriazed representative of the complainant/opposite parry. The witness Dinesh Mehta happens to be one of the Directors of the opposite party/complainant company and he submitted the affidavit in support of the petition of complaint as required under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Mr. Bhattacharya has pointed out from the materials on record that the opposite party/complainant company filed the petition of complaint before the court of the Learned Magistrate supported by the affidavit of one Atul Agarwal who happens to be the authorized representative of the opposite party/complainant company. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the Learned Magistrate has duly considered not only the petition of complaint and the affidavit filed by Atul Agarwal, the authorized representative of the opposite party/complainant company, but also the affidavit of other witness, namely, Dinesh Mehta and documents annexed to the petition of complaint for arriving at the satisfaction that a prima facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the present petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharya has urged this court to consider that the impugned order dated 14 - 06 -2013 is not the verbatim representation of the earlier order dated 26 -09 -2011 as contended on behalf of the petitioner.