AMAR NATH Vs. NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT has been conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Sudarashtan Kumar that Shri Sudarshan Kumar was only an attorney of Shri Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, who was the sole proprietor of the concern-Malook Chand Aggarwal and Sons. Shri Sudarshan Kumar was neither the partner nor the proprietor of the said concern. The disputed cheque though issue by Sudarshan Kumar, it was issued by him only as an attorney on behalf of Shri Naresh Kumar Aggarwal. In view of this categorical statement of Mr. Guglani on behalf of Shri Sudarshan Kumar, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution of respondent No. 2-Shri Sudarshan Kumar was unwarranted.

(2.) REVERTING to the merits of the revision petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that it has to be allowed. The stopping of payment amounts to dishonoring of the cheque within he meaning of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the reasons advanced by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint are totally erroneous, patently illegal and have caused material prejudice to the petitioner. Resultantly, the present revision is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate Annexure P.1 dated February 21, 1995 is hereby set aside. The directions are given to the Magistrate to restore the complaint in its original number and proceed against Shri Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, proprietor of Malook Chand Aggarwal and Sons. 9/5 Rana Partap Marg, Lucknow, according to law.