PRAHALAD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana (Nagaur) in NIA Case No. 61-A/2004 as well as the order dated 16.09.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana in Revision Petition No. 09/2005.

(2.) It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner without considering the fact as well as the position of law. The allegations for issuing cheques is upon Sadul Singh and not upon the petitioner. In the complaint filed by the complainant Prema Ram, statement under Sections 200 and 202, CrPC were recorded and upon perusal of the complaint as well as statement, cognizance was taken against the petitioner and other accused. It is further contended that a bare perusal of the complaint and the statement shows that there is no allegation against the petitioner, therefore, in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cognizance taken against the petitioner is illegal and there is no evidence against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also contended that the learned trial Court discharged the petitioner for offence under Section 420, IPC as such the order of taking cognizance is illegal and contrary to law. Further it is contended that against that order, a revision petition was preferred, which was also dismissed by the revisional Court while holding that the revision is not maintainable and the petitioner is having right to agitate the matter before the learned trial Court. It was also observed in the order passed by the revisional Court that it is the duty of the trial Court to decide sthe objections raised by the petitioners against the cognizance after hearing both the parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. While citing the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards Para Nos. 8 and 15 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-