Bombay High Court
M/S Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private ... vs Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm ... on 10 June, 2019
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 1/50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited A Company Registered Under
Indian Companies Act, 1956.
(Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.2)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm Reg.
U/D The Indian Partnership Firm Act,
Sq.Police, Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur Through its
Partnership Mr. Ajay Kumar Premkiranji
Surana
(Ori. Complainant.)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 2/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup .Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 3/50
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 4/50
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.109 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup . Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 5/50
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 6/50
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm,
through its Partner Partnership Mr. Ajay
Kumar Premkiranji Surana. (Ori.
Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 7/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm Reg.
U/D The Indian Partnership Firm Act,
Tilak Sq.Police, Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur Through its
Partnership Mr. Ajay Kumar Premkiranji
Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 8/50
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.115 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 9/50
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 10/50
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.120 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 11/50
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.121 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 12/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 13/50
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.124 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 14/50
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 15/50
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited, registered U/D Indian
Companies Act, 1956. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 16/50
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
registered u/d Indian Partnership Act
Tilak Sq. Police Station Ganesh Pewth
Nagpur, through its Partner Mr. Ajay
Kumar Premkiranji Surana. (Ori.
Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited Company, (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 17/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 18/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.135 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 19/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.136 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 20/50
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 21/50
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.140 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 22/50
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.141 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 23/50
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 24/50
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2013
APPLICANTS :- 1) M/s Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal) Private
Limited. (Ori. accused no.1)
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::
213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 25/50
2) Sumeet Prafulla Maheswari,
Aged Major, Occup. Business Now Nav
Bharat Complex, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal.
(Ori. accused no.3)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Nootan Agencies Partnership Firm
through its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar
Premkiranji Surana. (Ori. Complainant)
2) Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri.Rajeev Madkholkar, S.S.Ghate, G.K.Iyer, counsels for the
applicants
Shri.M.P.Khajanchi, Tushar Darda, counsel for the respondent
no.1
Shri.V.P.Maldhure A.P.P. for respondent no.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
RESERVED ON : 06.06.2019
PRONOUNCED ON :14.06.2019
J U D G M E N T :-
Since the issues involved in these revision applications are identical, the same are decided by this common judgment.
2. By these revision applications the original accused have challenged concurrent judgments and orders passed by the Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 26/50 two courts below, whereby the applicants have been found guilty of having committed offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') and the applicant no.2 has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court, alongwith a further direction to pay compensation to the respondent no.1 (original complainant) under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') for amounts specified in respect of each complaint filed by respondent no.1.
3. Originally, there were three accused in the complaints filed by the respondent no.1 but one of the accused was found to have played no role in the present cases and therefore, she stood acquitted by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class itself. Hence, these revision applications have been filed only by the original accused nos.1 and 3.
4. The respondent no.1 filed complaints against the applicants and another accused before the Magistrate claiming that cheques issued by the accused pertaining to supply of certain Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 27/50 printing material by the respondent no.1, had been dishonoured upon being presented for encashment. It was the claim of respondent no.1 that the said cheques had been issued towards legal debt and liability and that even after notice was issued by the respondent no.1 to the accused for making payments, the accused had failed to do so, thereby committing offence under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act. The accused appeared before the Magistrate on being summoned and denied the allegations made against them and further claimed to be innocent. The respondent no.1 through its partner placed evidence by way of affidavit on record and also examined official of the postal department in order to prove service of notice on the accused. The respondent no.1 also examined a chartered accountant as its witness, in order to prove the fact that the cheques in question had been dishonoured. The respondent no.1 also placed documentary material on record to show that its partner had been authorised to prosecute the complaints and to depose before the Magistrate.
5. The defence of the accused was that the applicant no.1 company had been separated and divided into groups and Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 28/50 that supply of material had been made by the respondent no.1 to a separate entity at Nagpur and that the applicant no.1 being concerned only with the office at Bhopal, could not be said to be liable for the dishonour of the aforesaid cheques. The accused also raised contentions pertaining to the complaint filed by respondent no.1 being defective, as being a partnership firm it could not have filed the complaint in the capacity of complainant.
6. The court of Magistrate took up all the complaints filed by respondent no.1 for consideration together and by a common judgment and order dated 1.12.2012, the Magistrate found that while accused no.2 could not be said to be liable, the applicants i.e. accused Nos.1 and 3 were liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act. It was found that the complaints were maintainable at the behest of respondent no.1 and further that all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the said Act had been proved, thereby showing that the applicants herein were liable to be convicted and sentenced. On this basis, the Magistrate passed the common judgment and order against the applicants.
Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 29/50
7. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants filed appeals before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The said Court dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants, thereby confirming the common judgment and order convicting and sentencing the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants filed the present revision applications.
8. This Court issued notices in the revision applications, which were later on admitted and the sentence imposed by the Court of Magistrate and maintained by the Appellate Court was stayed in view of the fact that the applicants had deposited the entire amount pertaining to all the cheques in respect of which complaints had been filed by the respondents.
9. Mr. Rajiv Madkholkar, appearing on behalf of the applicants alongwith Mr.S.S. Ghate, submitted that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below were unsustainable because the complaints filed by respondent no.1, which claimed to be a registered partnership firm, were not Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 30/50 maintainable in the eyes of law because the respondent no.1 being a firm could not be said to be a legal entity. It was contended that a perusal of the complaints would show that they had been filed by the respondent no.1-Nootan Agencies, a firm, which could not be said to be an entity legally capable of filing the complaints. It was further submitted that there was no material placed on record by respondent no.1 to show that it was indeed a registered partnership firm and that therefore, on this ground also, the complaints were not maintainable. It was further submitted that a perusal of the evidence filed on behalf of the the respondent no.1 by one of its partners would show that it was not an affidavit and that the verification was also absolutely defective. Reliance was placed on Section 145 of the aforesaid Act to contend that evidence was expected to be on affidavit and when the affidavit in evidence of respondent no.1 was inherently defective, the courts below could not have allowed the complaints filed by respondent no.1.
10. It was contended that when the aforesaid act and the Cr.P.C. did not specifically give the form of affidavit, reliance Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 31/50 could be placed on order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as 'the C.P.C.') to show that the affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of respondent no.1 was wholly defective and that the courts below ought to have discarded the same. The next contention raised on behalf of the applicants was that the respondent no.1 in the complaints before the Magistrate had not been able to specify as to when the notice purportedly issued to the applicants was served. It was contended that when specific date of service of notice on the applicants was not pleaded and proved by the respondent no.1, the strict requirement of Section 138(c) of the aforesaid Act was not satisfied and all the complaints were not maintainable against the applicants. It was submitted that when service of notice on the applicants was not proved in accordance with law, there was no question of the courts below convicting and sentencing the applicants. It was also submitted that the courts below had not properly appreciated statements and answers to questions given by the applicants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and this aspect also demonstrated the error committed by the courts below in passing the impugned judgments and orders. The learned counsel for the applicants Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 32/50 relied upon dictionary meanings and number of judgments to support his contentions, which shall be referred at the appropriate place in this judgment.
11. On the other hand, Mr.M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted that there was no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants and that all the revision applications deserved to be dismissed. The learned counsel pointed out that under Sections 7,9 and 142 of the aforesaid Act, cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act could be taken on a complaint made in writing by a payee or holder in due course of the cheque. It was submitted that the cheques issued in the present case were in favour of the respondent no.1, who clearly qualified to be a payee under Section 7 of the Act and the complaint was filed through partner of respondent no.1, who was a holder in due course under Section 9 of the Act. On this basis, it was pointed out that there was no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that the complaints were not maintainable because the respondent no.1 was not a legal entity Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 33/50 which could have filed the said complaints. On the aspect of whether the respondent no.1 firm was a registered firm or not, it was pointed out that such statement was emphatically made in the complaints and the material on record demonstrated that such status of respondent no.1 was indeed admitted by the applicants themselves.
12. On the question of affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 by its partner, it was contended that the same could not be said to be defective in any manner. The attention of this Court was invited towards affidavit in evidence, wherein the name of the deponent was given and it was stated that the verification was on oath, thereby satisfying the requirements of law. It was further submitted that as per law, the defect, if any, in the affidavit ought to have been pointed out by the applicants in the first instance before the Court of Magistrate and raising of such a technical objection, for the first time before the High Court in revisional jurisdiction was not permissible.
13. It was further submitted by the learned counsel on Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 34/50 behalf of the respondent no.1 that service of notice on the applicants was duly proved by the respondent no.1 by examining official of the postal department as CW-2. It was submitted that the said official had duly proved service of notice on the applicants by deposing on the basis of official record and that such material was enough to show that the notice was served in the ordinary course of business. Apart from this, attention of this Court was invited to a document on record in the form of a communication showing actual service of notice on the applicants. On this basis, it was contended that the requirements of Section 138(c) of the aforesaid Act were satisfied and that there was no substance in the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the applicants in this regard.
14. Apart from this, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 emphasized on the presumptions that arose under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act against the applicants, which they had failed to rebut. The learned counsel also pointed out that revisional jurisdiction exercised by this Court was limited and that in the face of the material on record, no case was made out by Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 35/50 the applicants for interference with the concurrent judgments and orders passed against them. It was emphasized that since the applicants did not have any case on merits, hyper technical pleas were being raised before this Court, which deserved to be rejected.
15. The learned counsel relied upon various judgments in support of his contentions, which shall be referred to at appropriate place in this judgment.
16. Mr.V.P. Maldhure learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State.
17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The first contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the respondent no.1 could not be said to be a legal entity in order to file and maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act. It was emphasized that the respondent no.1 being a firm was not a legal entity which could sue and therefore, the complaints were not maintainable, which the courts below failed to appreciate while passing the impugned Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 36/50 judgments and orders. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulichand Laxminarayan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in AIR 1956 SC 354(1) and N. Khadervali Saheb(dead) by Lrs. And anr. Vs. N.Gudusahib and ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 229. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 pointed out that there was distinction between capacity of a firm like respondent no.1 to initiate civil proceedings and the capacity to initiate a criminal proceedings like the complaints in the present case filed under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act. Sections 7, 9 and 142 of the aforesaid Act become relevant in the present context because as per Section 142 of the Act, a complaint is to be submitted in writing for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act by a payee or holder in due course of the cheque that has been dishonoured. ''Payee'' has been defined in Section 7 of that Act as the person named in the instrument ( in this case the cheques in question) and '' holder in due course'' has been defined in Section 9 of the said Act to mean any person, who for consideration becomes the possessor of a promissory note. In the present case, the respondent no.1 Nootan Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 37/50 Agencies was the payee because the cheques were undisputedly issued in its name and its partner was the holder in due course who filed the complaints pertaining to dishonour of cheques. Therefore, it becomes clear that the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that the complaints in the present case could not have been filed by the respondent no.1 is unsustainable. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has correctly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Finance and Investments Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 536, wherein it has been found that in a criminal complaint relating to an offence under Section 138 of the said Act, it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the payee. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Jothi Sarees Vs. PON Muruganatham, reported in 2006 (1) (MWN)(CR.)(DCC) 45, is also appropriate because in the said judgment it has been held that even an unregistered partnership could certainly maintain criminal complaint for offence under Section 138 of the said Act. Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 38/50
18. This shows that the emphasis placed on judgments by the learned counsel for the applicants in the cases of Dulichand Laxminarayan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and N. Khadervali Saheb(dead) by Lrs. And anr. Vs. N.Gudusahib and ors.(supra) can be of no assistance to the applicants. The courts below in the present case, have also correctly found that the criminal law could be set in motion by any person filing a complaint before the Magistrate and that viewed from that angle also it is found that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the applicants pertaining to non maintainability of the complaints filed by the respondent no.1 in the present case.
19. The next contention raised on behalf of the applicants pertains to the defective affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of the respondent no.1. In this regard the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Tekchand AIR 1985 SC 28, State of Bombay Vs. Purushottam Jog Naik reported in AIR 1952 SC 317 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Ms. Vishakha Engineering Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 39/50 and another reported in 2004(115) DLT 471. It was emphasized that an affidavit not in the form prescribed under order XIX of the C.P.C. rendered evidence produced by way of such affidavit as liable to be discarded by the court. It was claimed that the affidavit in evidence in the present case was wholly defective and that since it was not even on oath, the courts below could not have relied upon the same for convicting and sentencing the applicants. In this regard a perusal of the affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 would show that the details of the deponent are very much stated on record and it is also specifically stated that the complaint is being filed by the deponent, who is an authorised person to file the complaint on behalf of the respondent no.1 which is a registered partnership firm. The verification appended to the affidavit on evidence clearly asserts that the statements have been made on oath by the deponent on behalf of the complainant. This substantially complies with the requirement of law.
20. In any case, such objection with regard to the form of affidavit was never raised on behalf of the applicants before the Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 40/50 two courts below. It has been raised for the first time before this court in the revision applications and that too by way of amendment. It is a settled position of law that if such technical objections are to be raised, they have to be raised before the original court and not after the proceedings have travelled much further before the appellate and revisional courts. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 is justified in relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinita S. Rao Vs. Essen Corporate Services (P) LTD. reported in 2015(1) SCC 527, wherein, it has been held in similar circumstances that technical objection pertaining to copy of power of attorney not being produced could not have been raised before the High Court for the first time, when no such objection was ever raised before the two courts below. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
''11. We shall first deal with the submission that copy of power of attorney was not produced by the appellant. We have carefully perused the written submissions filed by the respondents in the trial court. This submission was not raised and consequently not considered by the trial court. In fact, since this Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 41/50 submission pertains to documents produced in the trial court, it ought to have been raised there. It could have been more appropriately dealt with by the trial court. But it was not raised.
The respondents filed appeal in the Sessions Court. In the appeal memo, no contention was raised that a copy of power of attorney was not produced in the trial court. Not only was this submission not raised in the appeal memo, it appears to have not been raised in the Sessions Court at the stage of arguments. The Sessions Court has, therefore, not dealt with it. This submission was raised for the first time only in the High Court. The fact that this submission was not raised in the trial court and in the lower appellate court weakens its force. The High Court, in our opinion, erred in entertaining such a belated argument.
Having entertained the argument, the High Court dealt with it in a very perfunctory manner. The High Court observed that Sudhir Gulvady, the power of attorney holder did not produce the power of attorney and, hence, he could not have been examined on behalf of the complainant.
The High Court further observed that the complainant who examined herself also did not say why the power of attorney was not produced.
Significantly, the appellant has not been questioned on this aspect. Not even a suggestion was made to her that she had not given any power of attorney to her husband and that it was Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 42/50 not produced on record''.
21. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the above mentioned judgments to emphasize that the entire evidence of respondent no.1 ought to have been discarded because there was non-compliance of order XIX of C.P.C. cannot be accepted. In this context, it also becomes clear that the objection with regard to lack of material to show that respondent no.1 was registered partnership firm, is also without any substance. The contents of the complaint and the affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 clearly show that the said respondent being a registered firm was emphatically stated and this was not specifically denied by the applicants. In any case, the position of law discussed above showing that, as a payee, the respondent no.1 could certainly have filed the complaints, demonstrates that there is no substance in the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the applicants.
22. As regards the contention regarding non compliance with Section 138(c) of the aforesaid Act, much emphasis was Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 43/50 placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the contents of the complaint, wherein it was stated that the notice issued by respondent no.1 was deemed to have been received by the applicants. It was emphasized that when no specific date regarding service of notice on the applicants was pleaded and proved by the respondent no.1, the offence under Section 138(c) of the Act was not complete and that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaints filed by the respondent no.1.
23. In this regard, a perusal of the complaints does show that it was stated on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the notice was sent on the correct address of the applicants and that it was deemed to have been served. It was also on record that acknowledgments regarding service of notice were not placed on record. But, in order to prove its case, respondent no.1 examined CW-2, an official of the postal department. A perusal of the evidence of the said witness shows that the notices were served on the applicants on 4.3.2004. In this regard the said witness referred to official records and emphasized that such documents had presumptive value as they were prepared in the ordinary course of Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 44/50 business. The said witness also referred to a document which was exhibited, being a letter dated 8.4.2004 received from the office of postal department at Bhopal, clearly stating that the notice was served on the applicants on 4.3.2004. Since, this document was prepared in the ordinary course of business of the postal department, there was no reason why it could be doubted. Such material was clearly enough to prove service of notice on the applicants on 4.3.2004 and since, admittedly, the amounts were not paid by the applicants to the respondent no.1 in terms of the dishonoured cheques within 15 days from that date, the offence was complete under Section 138(c) of the Act and the complaints filed within specified period were maintainable.
24. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 correctly relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs K. Gopala Krishnaiah reported in 2014(12) SCC 685, wherein it has been held in this context as follows:-
''10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 45/50 Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee.
Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business''.
25. This clearly shows that the learned counsel for the applicants was not justified in contending that notices were never served on the applicants and that there was violation of Section 138(c) of the Act.
26. It was also submitted on behalf of the applicants that the courts below had not properly appreciated the statements and answers to questions given by the applicant no.2 while his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh..Vrs. State of Madhya Bharat Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 46/50 reported in AIR 1953 SC 468. In this context perusal of the Section 313 statement of the applicant no.2 does not in any manner take the case of the applicants any further. In fact, when the said applicant was asked as regards the partner of the respondent no.1 being empowered to prosecute the complaint, the only response the applicant no.2 gave was that he did not know about the same. These kind of responses to the questions put during the course of recording of statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. show that the emphasis placed on this aspect of the matter on behalf of the applicants was misplaced.
27. Even otherwise, a significant aspect of cases under the aforesaid Act is the presumption that arises under Section 118 and 139 of the said Act regarding the cheques in question being issued for discharge of legal debt or liability. In the present case, the fact that the cheques were issued by the applicants in favour of respondent no.1 as the payee stood proved and therefore, presumption under the aforesaid provisions operated in full force against the applicants. In order to rebut the said presumption, the applicants merely claimed that the supply of printing material by Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 47/50 the respondent no.1 had been made to the Nagpur office from which the Bhopal office of applicant no.1 had already split. But, defence raised on behalf of the applicants was not proved and therefore, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the cheques were clearly found to have been issued for discharge of legal debt or liability. It is significant that in the present case no argument was raised before this Court on the merits of the findings rendered by the two courts below and all the arguments concerned only the aforesaid issues referred to above, pertaining to alleged defective affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, absence of proof of service of notice on the applicants and the respondent no.1 not having capacity to file the complaint as it could not be said to be a legal entity. But, as discussed above the applicants were unable to support their contentions.
28. Another relevant aspect in the present case is, as to the nature of jurisdiction being exercised by this Court while considering the criminal revision applications filed on behalf of the applicants. It has been laid down consistently that the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction can interfere with concurrent findings of the two courts below only when such Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 48/50 findings are found to be perverse or the courts below are found to have committed any jurisdictional error. This position has been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, in the case of Bir Sing Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) (4) SCC 197, wherein, while answering the question as to whether a revisional court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction can interfere with an order of conviction in the absence of any jurisdictional error, it was held as follows:
''16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record''.
''17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales and Services vs. Sauermilch Design and Handels GMBH, it is a well established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is therefore, in the negative''.
29. The aforesaid position of law makes it abundantly Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 49/50 clear that the revision applications filed by the applicants herein could be allowed only if the findings rendered by the courts below were found to be perverse or any jurisdictional error was found in the orders passed by the courts below.
30. As discussed in detailed above, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants can be accepted in view of the existing position of law as applied to the facts of the present case and therefore, neither can it be said that the two courts below committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned orders nor can it be said that the courts below rendered any perverse findings against the applicants.
31. Hence, this court finds no substance in the revision applications filed on behalf of the applicants and all the revision applications stand dismissed.
JUDGE Upon pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the applicants prays for continuation of interim order Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 ::: 213 cri.revn.103-13 -Judgment 50/50 of restraining the withdrawal of amount by the respondent no.1. Considering the fact that this court has found that the revision applications had no merit, the request is rejected. Consequently, the amount kept in fixed deposit by order of this Court, with the appellate Court, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No.1 with accrued interest, if any.
JUDGE Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:15:12 :::