Packaging vs M/S Sana Food
2022 Latest Caselaw 1250 UK

C-482 No.367 of 2022
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.

Challenge in this petition is made to the summoning order dated 26.09.2018, passed in Complaint Case No.1623 of 2018, M/S R.S.G. Packaging vs. M/S Sana Food Products, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act"), passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/3 Additional Civil Judge rd

(Jr. Div.), Haridwar as well as the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No.393 of 2019, M/S Sana Food Products vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mainly two grounds have been raised, which are as follows:-

(1) That the person, who filed complaint was not authorized on the date of filing complaint and; (2) The compliance of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") has not been done properly.

It is not the case of the petitioner, as well that the person, who filed the complaint was not initially authorized. The impugned order reveals that after the death of a person, who initially filed the complaint, another person was authorized by the firm. In view of it, there appears to be no error on this account.

But, fact remains that along with complaint, an affidavit was filed by the complainant and in the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the statement of the complainant was recorded. The contention is that it is not compliance of Section 202 of the Code. The impugned judgment in the revision, based on a judgment of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, observed that the provisions of Section 202 of the Code is not applicable in the proceedings under the Act.

In fact, in the case of Re- Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 observed that inquiry under Section 202 of the Code is required in the proceedings under the Act.

The question that would fall for deliberation is, whether recording of the evidence of the complainant is sufficient compliance of Section 202 of the Code?

Issue notice to the respondent no.2, returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing the proceedings of the court below shall remain in abeyance.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.04.2022 Sanjay