Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 437 (RAJ)

Lalita Hundiya v. Govind Narayan Khuteta

2008-02-13

K.S.RATHORE

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts of the case are that the accused-respondent No.1 entered into a commercial transaction and made purchases from the petitioner M/s Milk Vita Diary Product, C-7, New Grain Depot, Chandpol Bazar. The particulars of the purchases between the period from 10.04.2000 to 14.04.2000 are as under:- Bill No. Date Amount (In Rs.) 246 10.04.2000 42,325.00 251 10.04.2000 25,215.00 372 13.04.2000 37,394.50 382 14.04.2000 50,992.50 2. From 18.04.2000 to 24.04.2000, the accused-respondent No.1 issued cheques of different amount towards the aforesaid bills i.e. Cheque No. 449969 dated 18.04.2000 for Rs. 67,540.00, Cheque No. 449956 dated 23.04.2000 for Rs. 50,992.50 and Cheque No. 449961 dated 24.04.2000 for Rs. 37,394.50 and the aforesaid cheques were of Punjab National Bank, Branch in Johari Bazar, Jaipur and were issued in the name of firm Milk Vita Diary Products with assurance that the payment will be made as and when the same will be presented before the bank. 3. On 15.05.2000, the complainant submitted the aforesaid cheques in Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Banipark Branch, Jaipur for payment and the same were forwarded to the Punjab National Bank, Johari Bazar Branch, Jaipur for clearance. On 16.05.2000 the Punjab National Bank returned the cheques with an endorsement that the accused has already closed his account. On 27.05.2000, the complainant sent a registered legal notice to the accused-respondent as well as legal notice through U.P.C. On 29.05.2000 and the same were served upon the accused respondent on 01.06.2000 as the petitioner did not tender any amount payable towards the cheque amount within the time limit. On 08.07.2000 the complainant executed a Power of Attorney authorising the Manager of the firm Shri Ram Chand Hundiya to initiate and conduct legal proceedings. 4. On 10.07.2000 a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was moved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Division) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Power of Attorney was examined by the Court and Power of Attorney, bills, cheques, letters of banker as well as notices were produced[3] and exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. 5. Vide order dated 22.09.2000, the trial Court took cognizance against the accused respondent and summoned him. Division) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Power of Attorney was examined by the Court and Power of Attorney, bills, cheques, letters of banker as well as notices were produced[3] and exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. 5. Vide order dated 22.09.2000, the trial Court took cognizance against the accused respondent and summoned him. Thereafter on 20.11.2001, the accused respondent moved an application seeking quashment of the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance against the accused-respondent and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.02.2004, against which the accused-respondent has preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan, Jaipur and the same was registered as Criminal Revision No. 28/2004. Vide order impugned dated 07.08.2004 the Revisional Court while allowing the criminal revision filed by the accused-respondent, quashed and set aside the orders dated 27.02.2004 and 22.09.2000 passed by the trial Court and discharged the accused respondent from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against which the instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The main challenge to the Revisional Court's order dated 07.08.2004 is on the ground that on the pretext that the Power of Attorney has[4] no locus to file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is dismissed on this ground, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the orders impugned passed by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court. 8. The Revisional Court while allowing the criminal revision filed by the accused-respondent, quashed and set aside the cognizance order passed by the trial Court as the complaint has not been filed according to the provisions of Section 142(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on the technical ground itself, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same was accordingly dismissed and the cognizance taken on the complaint was also quashed and set aside. 9. As per the settled preposition of law, this Court do not find any illegality or error in the order impugned and the Revisional Court has not committed any illegality which require any interference by this Court.Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. As per the settled preposition of law, this Court do not find any illegality or error in the order impugned and the Revisional Court has not committed any illegality which require any interference by this Court.Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. *******