LEPAKSHI OVEN SACKS INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the revision are M/s.Lepakshi Woven Sacks Industries represented by its Managing Partner P.Lata Kishan Rao W/o. P.Kishan Rao and P.Late Kishan Rao W/o.P.Kishna Rao. The respondent No.2 is the complainant in C.C.No.104 of 2014 in maintaining the private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act') for dishonor of the cheque bearing No.605097 dated 02.03.2012 issued in his favour by M/s.Lepakshi Woven Sacs Industries, represented by its Managing Partner. The said M/s.Lepakshi Woven Sacks Industries represented by its L.Kishan Rao S/o.P.Madhav Rao was arrayed as the 3rd respondent to the revision. The present revision is maintained against the orders in Crl.P.Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2014 passed by the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad on 14.10.2014 on the petition filed to reopen the complainant's evidence and to add the additional accused respectively one under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the other under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and after contest from allowing of the petitions by the impugned order in questioning on its sustainability.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of revision vis- -vis the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners supra that as per the NI Act, mandatory provision of service of notice to relevant party within stipulated time and without which and without there is any legally enforcement of debt or liability, there is no cause of action much less to implead a co-accused that too after progress of the trial while near to the stage of arguments of the calendar case and the impugned order in so far as adding of the additional accused is unsustainable and sought for setting aside the order to that extent by allowing the revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the arguments placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kamal Lakhotia v. Shri Rajesh Parekh: Bhaven Parekh, 2010 6 AIRBomR 96.