BHAGYADHAR DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 7.12.2001 in I.C.C. Case No. 102 of 1998 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. Petitioner is the accused in that case whereas opposite party No. 2 is the complainant and the impugned order is an order passed under Section 251, Cr.P.C.

(2.) IN the said complaint case cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short, 'the Act') was taken and process was issued to the petitioner to stand the trial. Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint and the statement of the complainant do not satisfy the requirement of law for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act inasmuch as the complainant did not satisfy the Court below about service of registered notice in accordance with Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, and therefore cause of action did not arise to take cognizance as per the provision in Section 142 of the Act. Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party on the other hand argued that the complainant and the statement under Section 200 of the complainant, if read together, disclose a prima facie case by giving necessary particulars relating to the cause of action and therefore when the case has already gone to the stage of trial, the order of cognizance may not be interfered with.

(3.) THUS , there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Send back the L.C.R. immediately to the Court below along with a copy of this order, because it involves a part -heard trial.