MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. ANKUR ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are directed against the order dated 14.1.2011 passed by the re visional court dismissing the revision petitions of the accused petitioner against the order passed by the learned trial court by which application under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code dated 28.5.2010 was rejected by the learned trial court on 27.9.2010

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Bhandari relying upon the decision of a Coordinate bench of this Court dated 22.7.2009 in the case of Prakash Chand v. State of Raj. & Anr,2009 3 WLC(Raj) 765. submitted that the learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent complainant M/s. Ankur Enterprises under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act merely on the basis of affidavit filed along with the complaint without examining the complainant and recording his statements on oath under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code Learned court below has erred in rejecting the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:

(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant. Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit relied upon the later view of another coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan &Anr., 2010 3 WLC(Raj) 191. decided on 2.4.2010 in which distinguishing the aforesaid view in the case of Prakash Chand (supra) & holding it to be per incuriam.) another learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Mandvi Co-op Bank v. Mmesh B. Thakore, 2010 3 RajLW 2554. and Radhey Shyam Garg v. Naresh Kumar Gupta,2009 CrLR 546. and held that Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a non obstante provision and there is no distinction made for pre-summoning stage and post summoning stage and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Prakash Chand's case (supra) holding that Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code would override Section 145(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act is incorrect and has been rightly distinguished in the later view in the case of Rakesh Sharma (supra).