Karnataka High Court
Pkcs Babu @ P.K.Chandrashekar Babu vs Smt. Nagarathna on 25 April, 2024
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.556/2023
C/W.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.554/2023
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.557/2023
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.558/2023
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.556/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. PKCS BABU @ P.K.CHANDRASHEKAR BABU,
S/O ACHUTHAN NAIR P.K.,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. INDIRANAGARA CHIT FUNDS
AND TRADING COMPANY LTD.,
NO.258, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, PB NO.3803
BENGALURU-560 038.
AND RESIDING AT NO.1106,
10TH FLOOR, D BLOCK
KENSIGTON GARDEN,
HMT ROAD,
PRESTIGE APARTMENT
BENGALURU 560013.
BANGALORE-560 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. M/S. SRI MANJUNATHA JEWELLERY WORKS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI E. HARISH S/O ESHWAR SHET,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO 1, 2ND TEMPLE ROAD,
15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01-04-2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.1358/2022 DATED 01-04-2023
ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT IN CC NO.5013/2019 AND TO EXAMINE THE
ORDER, DATED 12-10-2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AT ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE IN CC NO.5013/2019 DATED 12-10-2022
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUITS THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT IN CC NO.5013/2019.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.554/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. VAISHAK BABU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
MANAGER OF M/S. INDIRANAGARA CHIT FUNDS
AND TRADING COMPANY LTD.,
NO.258, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, PB NO.3803
BENGALURU-560 038.
3
AND RESIDING AT NO.1106,
10TH FLOOR, D BLOCK
KENSIGTON GARDEN,
HMT ROAD,
PRESTIGE APARTMENT
BENGALURU-560 013
BANGALORE-560 027
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. E.HARISH.
S/O ESHWAR SHET
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.1, 2ND TEMPLE ROAD,
15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 CR.PC OF PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER, DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED
LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.1357/2022 DATED 01.04.2023
ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT IN CC NO.5012/2019 AND TO EXAMINE THE
ORDER, DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AT ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE IN CC NO.5012/2019 DATED 12.10.2022
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT IN CC NO.5012/2019.
4
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.557/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. PKCS BABU @ P.K.CHANDRASHEKAR BABU
S/O ACHUTHAN NAIR P.K,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. INDIRANAGAR CHIT FUND AND
TRADING COMPANY LTD.,
NO.258, 1ST STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, PB NO.3803,
BENGALURU -560 038,
AND RESIDING AT NO.1106,
10TH FLOOR D BLOCK,
KENSIGTON GARDEN, HMT ROAD,
PRESTIGE APARTMENT,
BENGALURU-560 013,
BANGALORE-560 027. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O ESHWAR SHET,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.1, 2ND TEMPLE ROAD,
15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU -560 003. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.1356/2022 DATED 01.04.2023
ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
5
FOR THE OFFEN UNDER 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
ACT IN CC NO.5011/2019 AND TO EXAMINE THE ORDER, DATED
12.10.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE AT ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN CC NO.5011/2019 DATED
12.10.2022 ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
SAME BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUITS THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT IN CC NO.5011/2019.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.558/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. PKCS BABU @ P.K.CHANDRASHEKAR BABU
S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR P.K.,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. INDIRANAGAR CHIT FUNDS AND
TRADING COMPANY LTD.,
NO.258, 1ST STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, PB NO.3803,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
AND RESIDING AT NO.1106,
10TH FLOOR, D BLOCK,
KENSIGTON GARDEN,
HMT ROAD, PRESTIGE APARTMENT
BENGALURU - 560 013
BANGALORE 560 027
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI E. HARISH
S/O. ESHWAR SHET,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. SRI MANJUNATHA JEWELLERY WORKS
6
NO.1, 2ND TEMPLE ROD,
15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU 560 003.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.1357/2022 DATED 01.04.2023
ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT IN CC NO.5014/2019 AND TO EXAMINE THE
ORDER, DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AT ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE IN CC NO.5014/2019 DATED 12.10.2022
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT IN CC NO.5014/2019.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.04.20224, THIS
DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In Crl.R.P.Nos.554/2023, 556/2023, 557/2023 and
558/2023:
These criminal revision petitions are filed against the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act ('NI Act' for short) against the revision petitioners in all
the criminal cases and all of them have been taken together
for consideration, since the petitioner is same and the
complainant are different but similar set of facts.
2. This criminal revision petition arises out of
C.C.No.5012/2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Crl.P.No.907/2021 also arises out of the said
case. This Court granted interim order in
Crl.P.No.907/2021 and other connected cases on
08.06.2021 and the same was extended on 28.06.2021.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
the granting of stay order was informed before the Trial
Court on 25.02.2022 by filing a memo and inspite of the
same, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment. The
learned counsel contend that the criminal petitions were
allowed on 19.07.2022 and conviction order was passed on
12.10.2022. The learned counsel contend that when the
petition was allowed, the Trial Court ought not to have
proceeded against the petitioner herein. Though the
petitions were allowed on 19.07.2022, the order was signed
in the month of November 2022 and an order has been
passed clarifying the earlier order passed in the connected
matter. Hence, the Trial Court ought not to have proceeded
against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel brought
to the notice of this Court paragraph No.24 of the Appellate
Court order wherein discussion was made and also on
merits it requires interference of this Court.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent referring the order passed by this Court in
criminal petitions dated 07.12.2022, would contend that
when memo was taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the petitioner made a submission that petition
in Crl.P.No.907/2021 be delinked, order be recalled,
petition be restored and be dismissed as withdrawn as the
petitioner would not want to pursue the petition any
further. Placing the submission on record, an order has
been passed that Crl.P.No.907/2021, which was disposed
by order dated 19.07.2022, stands recalled, petition gets
restored and is delinked from the batch of petitions and in
view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, petition is disposed as withdrawn. The learned
counsel referring the said order would contend that when
the petition was withdrawn and earlier order was recalled,
the very contention of the petitioner does not arise.
4. Having taken note of the order 'on being spoken
to' dated 07.12.2022 passed by this Court, it is clear that
Crl.P.No.907/2021 arising out of C.C.No.5012/2019, was
disposed as withdrawn and also the petition was delinked
from the batch of petitions and hence, the very contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court
ought not to have proceeded against the petitioner cannot
be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend
that the granting of stay order was informed to the
concerned Court vide memo dated 25.02.2022. The
learned counsel for the respondent contend that there is no
any such endorsement made on the said memo by the Trial
Court and no such memo was filed. The learned counsel for
the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that on
25.02.2022, no such memo was filed before the Trial Court
and no material is placed before this Court also for having
communicated the stay order to the Trial Court. The fact is
that the judgment was delivered by the Trial Court on
12.10.2022 and further order was passed in the month of
November 2022 by this Court and consequently the 'order
on being spoken to' dated 07.12.2022 was passed by this
Court and hence the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner cannot be accepted. No doubt, before the
Trial Court no cross-examination was made. The learned
counsel for the respondent also brought to the notice of this
Court that even though the petitioner sought time, not
cross-examined the witness and the fact that stay was
granted also was not intimated to the Trial Court and even
participated before the Trial Court and filed several
exemption applications. The memo dated 25.02.2022 is
not in the order sheet and no reference in the order sheet
and inspite of sufficient opportunity was given, not cross-
examined the witness and even after 19.07.2022 also
participated before the Trial Court and not brought to the
Court notice about the allowing of the petition and an
application is filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling
of the witness and the same is allowed on cost and not
cross-examined the witness. When such being the case,
when there is no any defence and also not cross-examined
the witness, on merits also, it does not require any
interference and nothing is there to consider the matter in
revision to comes to the conclusion that order of the Trial
Court suffers from its legality and correctness and hence, I
do not find any ground to set aside the order of the Trial
Court.
In Crl.R.P.Nos.556/2023:
5. In this case, the respondent filed the complaint
under section 138 of the NI Act and the complainant also
filed Crl.P.No.1012/2021 and the learned counsel would
contend that in respect of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in
Crl.P.No.1012/2021, proceedings has been quashed. The
present revision petitioner is accused No.2 for dishonour of
Cheque for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. The learned
counsel would contend that when there is no any averment
regarding invoking the ingredients of Section 141 of the NI
Act in the complaint, the question of invoking Section 138
of the NI Act does not arise. The learned counsel contend
that the Cheque clearly discloses that it bears the seal of
the company and how the complainant can have the seal of
a company while getting the Cheque.
6. The learned counsel in support of his arguments
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
ANEETA HADA AND OTHERS v. GODFATHER TRAVELS
AND TOURS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in AIR
2012 SC 2795. The learned counsel referring this
judgment would contend that when complaint is quashed
against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, cannot proceed against the
petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent would
vehemently contend that when the accused is the Managing
Director and was running the company and while issuing
the Cheque requested to get the seal and accordingly the
Cheque was given with seal. The learned counsel contend
that the proceedings is quashed against accused Nos.1, 3
and 4 only on the ground that corporate debtor cannot be
punished and hence quashed the proceedings and this
petitioner being the Managing Director is responsible and
hence not quashed the proceedings against this petitioner
and hence the said contention cannot be accepted.
In Crl.R.P.Nos.557/2023:
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend
that case is filed for bouncing of Cheque for an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- and in this case, the case against accused
Nos.1 and 3 is quashed in Crl.P.No.911/2021 and this
petitioner is accused No.2. Though stay was granted,
interim order was not communicated to the Trial Court and
no document is also produced for having communicated the
interim order. The learned counsel contend that the
Managing Director cannot be liable. The learned counsel
contend that regarding Section 141 of the NI Act, there is
no averment in the complaint.
9. The learned counsel in support of his argument
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
S.M.S. PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. NEETA BHALLA
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2005 SC 3512 and brought
to the notice of this Court paragraph No.16, wherein
discussion was made with regard to Section 141 of the NI
Act. Whether for purposes of Section 141 of the NI Act, it
is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a
whole fulfill the requirements of the said section and it is
not necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the
persons accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the
conduct of the business of the Company. Whether a
director of a company would be deemed to be in charge of,
and responsible to, the company for conduct of the
business of the company and, therefore, deemed to be
guilty of the offence unless he proves to the contrary. Even
if it is held that specific averments are necessary, whether
in the absence of such averments the signatory of the
Cheque and or the Managing Directors of Joint Managing
Director who admittedly would be in charge of the company
and responsible to the company for conduct of its business
could be proceeded against. This controversy has arisen in
the context of prosecutions launched against officers of
Companies under Sections 138 of the NI Act, wherein
discussed Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act.
10. The learned counsel referring this judgment
would contend that the Trial Court ought not to have
proceeded against this petitioner. The learned counsel
contend that when company is left out, cannot be continued
and the Trial Court also not considered the capacity.
In Crl.R.P.Nos.558/2023:
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the proceedings is initiated against the
petitioner for dishonour of Cheque for an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- and Crl.P.No.809/2021 was filed and stay
was granted and inspite of the Trial Court proceeded to
pass the impugned order.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent would
contend that though order was passed on 19.07.2022 by
this Court, copy was applied on 26.12.2022 and copy was
delivered on 27.12.2022 and it clearly discloses that the
same is not intimated to the Trial Court and also not cross-
examined the complainant in all the cases, but participated
in the proceedings. The petitioner is the Managing Director
of the company and the proceedings is quashed against
accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 only on the ground that corporate
debtor cannot be punished. This petitioner is accused No.2
and though petition is filed, this Court has not quashed the
proceedings and continued the proceedings against the
petitioner. This petitioner being the Managing Director is
responsible for the same, since the Cheques are issued by
him and hence the contention of the petitioner cannot be
accepted.
13. Having heard the counsel for respective parties
in respect of Crl.R.P.No.556/2023, Crl.R.P.No.557/2023 and
Crl.R.P.Nol.558/2023, this Court has to analyze the material
on record together since similar grounds urged in all these
petitions and hence taken together for consideration.
14. In respect of Crl.R.P.No.556/2023 The main
contention of the counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner is that the proceeding against accused Nos.1, 3
and 4 in Crl.P.No.1012/2021 has been quashed. The
present revision petitioner is accused No.2. Admittedly, the
proceedings against the present revision petitioner is not
quashed. The proceedings against the other accused
quashed only on the ground of there cannot be any criminal
proceedings against the corporate debtor. The complainant
is given liberty to approach the official liquidator in respect
of corporate debtor. The other contention is that when
there is no averment regarding invoking the ingredient of
Section 141 of NI Act in the complaint, the question of
invoking Section 138 of NI Act does not arise.
15. The counsel also relied upon several judgments
particularly with regard to not making of any averment in
respect of Section 141 of NI Act i.e., in case of S.M.S.
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. NEETA BHALLA as well as
in case of ASHUTOSH ASHOK PARASRAMPURIYA AND
OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph
No.25 wherein observation is made that it is necessary to
aver in the complaint filed under Section 138 R/w Section
141 of NI Act that at the relevant time, when the offence
was committed, Directors were in charge and they are
responsible for the conduct of business of the company. In
the case of SIBY THOMAS V.s SOMANY CERAMICS
LTD., also discussed with regard to Section 141 of NI Act of
NI Act. It would also reveal that merely because somebody
is managing the affairs of the company, per se, he would
not become in charge of the conduct of the business of the
company as observed in paragraph No.16 and so also in
case of ANIL GUPTA also discussed with regard to Section
141 of NI Act.
16. Having taken note of the principles laid down in
the judgments referred supra and also taking into note of
the complaint averments, it is very clear in the complaint
that a specific averment is made that accused No.1 is the
company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director who is
in charge of helm of affairs as well as authorized signatory
and also case of the complainant is that this petitioner has
approached the complainant to invest the money.
Accordingly, the amount was invested in the business of the
company, when such averments are made, the very
contention of the counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner does not arise.
17. In this case also, the revision petitioner has
taken the contention that Cheque bears the seal of the
company. No explanation on the part of complainant but
counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently
contend that while issuing the Cheque, he instructed to put
the company seal and issue the Cheque. The issuance of
Cheque is not disputed, on the ground of technicality, there
cannot be any exonerating liability of the accused/revision
petitioner. No doubt the counsel also relied upon the
judgment of ANEETA HADA's case and in that case,
principle is laid down that without arraying the company
there cannot be any proceedings, the same is not applicable
to the facts of the case on hand, since the company is also
made as party to the proceedings.
18. In respect of Crl.R.P.No.557/2023 The counsel
would vehemently contend that proceedings against
accused Nos.1 and 3 is quashed in Crl.P.No.911/2021. This
revision petitioner is accused No.2 and there was a stay,
but continued the proceedings. Nothing is placed on record
for having communicated the stay order to the Trial Court.
The counsel has not disputed the said fact. The only
contention that Managing Director cannot be liable and the
said contention cannot be accepted.
19. This Court discussed with regard to invoking of
Section 141 of NI Act and relied on the judgment of S.M.S.
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., case wherein also discussion
was made with regard to Section 141 of NI Act and also
some of the questions are also raised in this case and held
that specific averments are necessary, whether in the
absence of such averments, the signatory of the Cheque
and Joint Managing Director who admittedly in charge of
the company and responsible to the company for conduct of
his business could be proceeded against them.
20. In the case on hand also, this Court discussed
with regard to the averment in the complaint with reference
to Section 141 of NI Act. I have already pointed out that
the proceedings against this petitioner has not been
quashed though he had approached the Court and only
proceedings was quashed on the ground of corporate
debtor cannot be punished. When such being the case, the
very contention that the Managing Director is not liable,
cannot be accepted. I have already pointed out that the
petitioner herein has approached the complainant to invest
the money. In order to clear the legally recoverable debt,
he had issued the Cheque and he is also an authorized
signatory. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the
facts of the case on hand. The contention that when the
company is left out cannot be continued, the proceedings
against the petitioner cannot be accepted. If really such
was the position, this Court ought to have quashed the
proceedings against the petitioner herein also, but rejected
the claim made in favour of this petitioner, when such being
the case, that itself permitted to proceed against the
petitioner.
21. In respect of Crl.R.P.No.558/2023 of this revision
petition also the counsel would contend that proceedings
would not have been continued against the petitioner
inspite of stay was granted. Admittedly, in all the cases,
stay order was not communicated to the Trial Court. No
such material is placed before the Court for having
communicated the stay order. It is also important to note
that the contention of the respondent that though order
was passed on 19.07.2022, even copy was applied after the
disposal of the case in the month of December and copy
was taken on 27.12.2022 only and rightly contend that the
same is not intimated to the Trial Court and the counsel
would contend that petitioner participated in the
proceedings before the Trial Court. It is also specific case
that accused No.2 who is the petitioner though filed the
petition, this Court has not quashed the proceedings
against the petitioner and hence continued the proceedings
against the petitioner.
22. It is also important to note that petitioner being
the Managing Director is responsible for the same, the
Cheques are issued by him and when such being the
material on record, the contention of the revision petitioner
cannot be accepted.
23. No doubt, before the Trial Court in all the cases
no cross-examination was made rebutting the case of the
complainant. The learned counsel for the respondent
brought to the notice of this Court that even though the
petitioner sought time, not cross-examined the witness and
though the learned counsel for the petitioner contend that
stay was granted, it was not intimated to the Trial Court
and even after alleged stay, the accused participated before
the Trial Court and filed several exemption applications. It
is also noticed by this Court that an application was filed
before the Trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for
recalling of the witness and the same is allowed on cost and
not cross-examined the witness inspite of an opportunity
was given. When such being the case, when there is no
any defence and also not cross-examined the witness, on
merits also, it does not require any interference and nothing
is there to consider the matter in revision to come to the
conclusion that the order of the Trial Court suffers from its
legality and correctness and hence I do not find any ground
to set aside the order of the Trial Court.
24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD/RHS
