SATYA SECURITIES Vs. UMA ERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions (Cr. M.M.O.'s Nos. 9 and 10 of 2002) arise out of same orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Shimla on 10-1-2002 and 15-1-2002.

(2.) It appears, respondent-Mrs. Uma Erry had filed a complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioners-M/s. Satyam Securities. Mr. Sham Ahuja and Ms. Anju Sham Lal Ahuja were also impleaded as accused in their capacity as proprietor/authorised officer of the company. It appears, when the case came up before the Court on 1-12-2001, the Presiding Officer was on leave and it was listed for 20-12-2001 for proper orders.

(3.) On 20-12-2001, neither the accused nor the complainant was present. However, Special Attorney of the complainant was present. Learned trial Magistrate in his wisdom directed that accused-petitioners be served through their counsel Sh. Y. P. Rana, Advocate for 10-1-2002. On 10-1-2002, in the similar circumstances, the Court once again directed that accused-petitioners be served through their counsel Sh. Y. P. Rana, Advocate, for 15-1-2002 on filing of fresh process fee. When the matter came up before the Court on 15-1-2002, neither accused nor their counsel was present. The learned trial Magistrate in this background, cancelled the personal and surety bonds of the accused and proceeded to forfeit the amount of bonds to the State. He further made orders for the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the accused for 16-3-2002. Proceedings under S. 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also directed to be initiated against the accused and sureties.