ROITONG SINGPHO Vs. SAJJAN KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding being Complaint Case No. 174/2003 was initiated by Sri Sajjan Kr. Agarwal (Goel), under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, (in short, "the Act") against M/s R. S. Trading Company, Mr. Pisi Jawlai Singpho and Mrs. Roitong Singpho, in the Court of the learned CJM at Tinsukia alleging that the accused persons in discharge of their liabilities issued and handed over an account payee cheque dated 07. 04. 2003 for Rs. 20,00,000/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Tinsukia Branch, Tinsukia, but when such cheque was presented with the United Bank of India, Tinsukia Branch it was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficient fund - "not arranged for. " The learned Magistrate after recording the initial deposition of the complainant vide order dated 01. 07. 2003 took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and issued process. The accused persons instead of appearing before the learned Magistrate pursuant to the summons issued, approached this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 427/2003 for quashing of the said proceeding in the complaint case. Though a Single Bench of this Court initially passed an interim order staying further proceeding of the complaint case, the said revision petition was eventually dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20. 01. 2006. After dismissal of the revision petition filed by the accused persons, fresh summons were issued by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) MRS . Roitong Singpho, the accused No. 3 in the complaint case, thereafter, through the learned counsel, filed an application on 12. 08. 2006 before the learned Magistrate praying for dispensing with her personal appearance before the Court and to allow her to be represented by the learned counsel, under Section 205 of the Cr. P. C. , on the ground that she is a resident of Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and suffering from various illness and has been advised complete bed rest by the attending doctor for which it is very difficult and inconvenient on her part to attend the Court at Tinsukia after undertaking a long journey on each and every date. The said application was rejected by the learned CJM vide order dated 02. 08. 2006 on the ground that if the said accused person is allowed to be represented by a learned Counsel, without appearing before the Court, the progress of the trial would be hampered. The learned Magistrate having held so directed issuance of bailable warrant of arrest fixing 19. 08. 2006 for appearance. The said accused person, thereafter, approached this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 310/2006 challenging the order dated 02. 08. 2006 passed by the learned CJM and for dispensing with her personal attendance before the learned Magistrate and to allow her to be represented by the counsel during pendency of the trial in Complaint Case No. 174/2003. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 17. 08. 2006, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the order allowing the petitioner to be represented by her duly engaged counsel during the proceeding before the learned Magistrate with a further direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court as and when so directed and also to regularly appear in person before the learned Court below immediately after she recovers from the ailment or as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. The said order was passed having regard to the ailment of the petitioner. The bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner was also directed to be recalled by the said order.

(3.) MRS . Roitong Singpho, one of the accused in the complaint case, filed an application on 05. 09. 2006 before the learned CJM, Tinsukia producing the certified copy of the order dated 17. 08. 2006 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 310/2006, requesting the Court to recall the bailable warrant of arrest issued against her. The learned CJM having perused the order dated 17. 08. 2006 passed by this Court in the criminal revision petition, rejected the advocate's representation sought for, as no medical certificate was filed along with such application. The learned Magistrate, however, recalled the bailable warrant of arrest issued earlier, pursuant to the direction issued by a Single Bench of this Court by the said order dated 17. 08. 2006, fixing 05. 10. 2006 for appearance of the accused. The accused No. 3 in the complaint case, Mrs. Roitong Singpho, on 05. 10. 2006 did not appear and instead filed an application for passing necessary orders stating inter-alia that as she has not recovered from illness she may be allowed to be represented by the learned counsel. The said application was also rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 05. 10. 2006 by disbelieving her illness and directed issuance of bailable warrant of arrest fixing 13. 10. 2006 for appearance. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 50 (4)/2006 before the learned Sessions Judge at Tinsukia, who vide order dated 06. 01. 2007 set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the prayer of the accused person under Section 205 Cr. P. C. Accordingly, such prayer was re-considered by the learned Magistrate and vide order dated 25. 08. 2007 such prayer was rejected as the medical certificate filed by the accused person in support of her illness was illegible and there was no proof of her suffering from any illness and also as she had violated the order of this Court dated 17. 08. 2006 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 310/2006. The learned Magistrate by the said order while issuing bailable warrant of arrest fixed 11. 10. 2006 for appearance. The said order was again challenged in Criminal Revision No. 2/2007 before the learned Sessions Judge at Tinsukia, which came to be decided by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tinsukia vide judgment and order dated 03. 09. 2007 allowing the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28. 05. 2007 and directing to recall the warrant of arrest and to proceed with the criminal case, by holding that the approach of the learned Magistrate is "found to be not in conformity with the propriety and judicial discipline", when the accused person has already been allowed to be represented by the learned counsel, by the High Court.