PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

1.      This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dated 16.12.2020 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressals Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 188 of 2020 holding that the appellants herein are not "consumers" under the purview of the Act and dismissing the complaint filed by them.

2.      The delay of 80 days in the filing of this complaint has been considered in the light of the fact that the impugned order was dated 16. 12.2020 and while the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of order, this period coincided with the COVID-19 Pandemic and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 the period for limitation stood extended.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate impugned orders of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter in short 'the AO') dated 29.03.2021 / 31.03.2021 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short 'the DRP') both dated 05.02.2021 and pertain to Assessment Years (hereinafter in short 'AY') 2016-17 & 2015-16 respectively.

IT(TP)A Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2015-16) M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd.

:: 2 ::

2. Both parties agreed that issues permeating in both the assessment years are similar and identical except that of ground no.3, 5, 9, 12 & 13 for assessment year 2016-17, which will be discussed at the last.

2. Sumit Bhardwaj Tehsildar (L.r), Laxmangarh, District Alwar

3. Shriram Meena S/o Deviram Meena, Principal Government Upper Primary School Kajota Laxmangarh

4. Mukesh Chand Meena, Lr Mauzpur

5. Sanjay Kumar Meena Patwari, Chimrawali Gaur

6. Imtiyaj Mohammed Patwari, Mauzpur A

7. Bhagat Singh Choudhari Patwari, Mauzpur B

----Accused/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/11/2024 Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, an appeal is provided under Section 14-A of the The Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989').

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.179/2024, registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 382, 336, 379, 323 & 143 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused namely; Abhishek S/o Hira Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. Mr. Khalid Jahangir Qazi, a national of United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India,1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking entry to India. He challenges the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him - order dated 12th May, 2023 issued by the Consulate General of India, New York,2 cancelling his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955,3 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and a subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Foreigners Act, 1946,4 restraining his entry into India. The underlying basis of these actions, as asserted by the Respondents, is the Petitioner's alleged involvement in activities deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of India.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred to as 'MVC-III') under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') which are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'EDMC'). EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation').

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the reply has been filed but the same has been filed belatedly, therefore, it has not come on record. The office is directed to place it on record.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply a copy thereof to the Counsel for the Applicant within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has also informed that the Officer of UPPCB had visited the site and found that the solid waste was unauthorizedly dumped in an area of 1600 sq.m. He has pointed out that there is no sanction/approval granted by the UPPCB in respect of this secondary collection point. He has sought two weeks' time to file the reply.

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

1. The Miscellaneous application has been moved for clarification in respect of directions issued by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 194/2024 dated 30.09.2024.

2. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks. Respondents are directed to submit their reply within six weeks through E-filing portal, preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.

3. Applicant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondents by both ways and also on available email.

M A No. 19/2024(CZ) Dr. Brijmohan Sapoot Kala Sanskriti Sewa Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan

4. Applicant is directed to supply the copy of the application and relevant documents to the Respondent(s) within a week and after compliance of service, the applicant has to submit an affidavit that the notice and copy of the application have been served upon the respondent(s).

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the reply has been filed but the same has been filed belatedly, therefore, it has not come on record. The office is directed to place it on record.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply a copy thereof to the Counsel for the Applicant within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has also informed that the Officer of UPPCB had visited the site and found that the solid waste was unauthorizedly dumped in an area of 1600 sq.m. He has pointed out that there is no sanction/approval granted by the UPPCB in respect of this secondary collection point. He has sought two weeks' time to file the reply.

1. Vide order dated 29.08.2024 Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit was directed to file the reply. Learned counsel representing respondent/ Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit has submitted that due to technical reasons reply has not been uploaded. The same may be filed within two weeks with copy to the opposite parties.

2. In the meantime, learned counsels for the State and BMC are directed to trace the map, revenue record with regard to allotment/allocation of green belt in the Map as approved.

3. Applicant present in person has submitted that the present matter relates only to the cutting of trees. MPPCB has issued notice to the Prakash Grih OA No. 139/2023(CZ) Krishnarani Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit with assessment of environmental compensation but the same has not been replied till date. State PCB is directed to finalise the matter and report within two weeks.

1. Heard Mr. Supriyo Dutta, representing the Applicant is present in person.

2. This Original Application has been registered on the basis of a letter petition submitted in the office of the Tribunal through email dated 18.07.2024 alleging that industrial factories and workshops around the village of the Applicant at Purbannapara located at Makardah Mouza under Domjur Block, District, Howrah has been causing severe environmental problems to the lives of the local people due to obnoxious gaseous effluents.

3. It is also alleged that the Saraswati Canal has been blocked due to it being used for dumping of waste water and other industrial waste material3 by several industries present in the area that continue unregulated dumping of the industrial wastes also resulting in deterioration of the environment in the locale.

The 'preliminary report' dated 24.07.2020 filed by the Expert Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2020 is taken on record. On the request of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, adjourned to 06.08.2020. Liberty to file further submission, if any, before the next date.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S. P. Wangdi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM July 29, 2020 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) & Original Application No. 44/2020(EZ) DV

1. Though the Respondents No. 5 to 11 are served and affidavit of service has been filed but no one has entered the appearance on their behalf, nor any reply has been received from them.

2. The fresh report of the Joint Committee has been filed by the UPPCB along with the reply dated 08.11.2024.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks one week time to examine the report and file objection, if required.

4. It has also been pointed out that OA No. 269/2024 involving the same issue against the same project proponent is pending.

5. List alongwith OA No. 269/2024 on 21.11.2024.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM November 11, 2024 Original Application No. 121/2024 dv..

1.1 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Hearing concluded. Order reserved. The order will be uploaded on the website, after due consideration, on or before 19.02.2021.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM February 15, 2021 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) with connected matters DV

1. Case taken up by video conference on Vidyo App.

2. These cases are taken up together as identical questions have been raised. The Applicant in O.A. No. 43/2020/EZ, an environmentalist, who has preferred the application alleging failure of the Respondent Authorities in preventing the blowout of Baghjan 5 oil well of the Respondent No. 1, M/s. Oil India Ltd. (OIL in short), resulting in a massive fire causing irreparable loss to the entire biodiversity of the region and loss of lives and property.

3. It is stated that on 27.05.2020 at around 10:30 AM the producing well of Baghjan 5 under the Baghjan Oilfield of OIL in Tinsukia District, Assam, released natural gas in an uncontrolled manner. Baghjan is one of the 23 oil wells set up by OIL to tap the large gas reserves in the Brahmaputra basin located near the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The released gas is stated to be a mix of propane, methane, propylene and other gases that flow with the wind the condensate of which mostly falls on the bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru- Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants, including a wide variety of rare orchids. It harbours the tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill.

1. This order is being passed in continuation of orders dated 24.06.2020 and 02.07.2020 dealing with the issue of providing remedies to the victims and for restoration of environment as a result of incident of oil blowout on 27.05.2020 and other consequential events that followed at Baghjan in Tinsukia District of Assam.

2. The Tribunal noted the case of the applicant that as a result of blowout on 27.5.2020, the Baghjan Oil well set up by the Oil India Limited (OIL) released propane, methane, propylene and other gases causing damage to bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants including a wide variety of rare orchids. The area harbours tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill. The oil also spilled into the Dibru river causing a film of oil in the river that passes through the Maguri- Motapung wetlands, an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and along the Dibru Saikhowa National Park. The Maguri-Motapung Wetland, located less than 10 km from Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, is a part of the Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve (DSBR) and hosts some of the most vulnerable species of birds such as Swamp Francolin, Marsh Babbler, Greater Adjutant and Pallas's Fish-eagle, Red-headed Vulture and White-bellied Heron, and over 80 species of fish. River Dibru is a tributary of River Lohit which then forms river Brahmaputra in the lower reaches. Brahmaputra river system is also a home to Gangetic dolphins. As a result of the blowout, there was also a fire on 09.06.2020. The applicant has also stated that the blowout has left behind huge volumes of residue as gas condensate which is a mixture of chemical compounds that are toxic for land and vegetation and is a known carcinogen. The blowout is not only hazardous to the health of the people but also severely affect their livelihood whose occupation is mainly agriculture, fishing and animal rearing. 1610 families were displaced as a result of the gas leak.

Judgment 11/11/2024 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Session Case No.241/2020 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 326, 324 & 448 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him as under :

Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 307 10 years SI Rs.25,000/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 2 months Addl. SI Sec. 326 7 years SI Rs.5,000/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 1 month Addl. SI Sec. 324 2 years SI Rs.500/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 7 days Addl. SI Sec 448 IPC 1 year SI -- Sec. 4/25 of 3 years SI Rs.2,000/- & in default of payment, Arms Act undergo 15 days Addl. SI [2024:RJ-JD:45484] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-422/2024]

2. All the petitioners are accused in FIR No.40/2011 registered with Police Station Kotawali in the District of Jaisalmer for Offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

3. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2023, the charges were ordered to be framed for offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled [2024:RJ-JD:44266] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-2169/2023] Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").

4. The prosecution case is that on 31.01.2011, respondent No.2 along with other officials had gone to identify the area of encroachment on the public land made by Achal Singh, petitioner No.1. When the informant was measuring the site, all the petitioners objected and allegedly committed abuses like Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani to the informant and others and they committed assault as well.

Order 12/11/2024

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2024, registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 & 120-B of IPC; Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, co-accused Ashish was having love affair with the deceased- Kokila. The co-accused Ashish on turning relations sour with the deceased Kokila hatched a criminal conspiracy with the present petitioner to kill her. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner and co-accused Ashish took the deceased- Kokila to [2024:RJ-JD:45612] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9555/2024] a nearby place on a motorbike which was being driven by the present petitioner. The co-accused Ashish, thereafter, took the deceased- Kokila in a nearby dry river (nala) and cut her throat by a sharp weapon (knife). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a bare perusal of the challan pappers and the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clearly established that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. At the time when the deceased- Kokila was killed by the co-accused Ashish, the petitioner was not present at the place of incident. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was having any knowledge about the intentions of the co-accused Ashish to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the only allegation against the present petitioner is of taking the co-accused Ashish and deceased Kokila to a nearby place on motorbike on request being made by them. Learned counsel further submitted that the sharp weapon (knife) and a motorbike allegedly used in the commission of crime have been recovered at the instance of the co-accused Ashish. Learned counsel submitted that there is no incriminating material available on record indicating the involvement of present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.

[2024:RJ-JD:43970] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2596/2023 Pappu Lal @ Dinesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Semarathi P.s., Chhoti Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1157/2023 Suresh Kumar S/o. Udai Lal Gurjar, aged 35 years, R/o. Semarthali, Police Station Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged in District Jail, Chittorgarh)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 07/11/2024 This application arises from a jail appeal.

2. This application seeking suspension of sentence has been filed on behalf of Dilip @ Vinod who has been convicted and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment for committing the offences under sections 302, 458, 120-B, 460, 449, 328, 395, 396, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3/25 & 7/25 of the Arms Act.

3. Mr. Moti Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant refers to the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 3 rd Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1291/2022 by which Vijay Kumar @ Khushi son of Darpi @ Khushi has been enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 109/2012.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Faruque Al Bash has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

Case diary is received.

The allegation in the FIR reveals that the daughter of the informant was dragged by the petitioner to an unknown place on his bike and sexually assaulted her.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A. I. Uddin, Advocate For the respondents :

Dates of hearing : 08.11.2024 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023- 2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4"x5" size polybags.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. By filing this petition u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Sunu Ali @ Md.

Page No.# 2/8 Nur Hussain has prayed for granting regular bail in connection with NDPS case No. 187/2024 u/s 21©/29 of NDPS Act (arising out of STF PS case no. 20/23) pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The instant case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of heroine from the hidden chamber of Tata Yodha vehicle bearing no. AS-25EC-4464 and the present petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with the alleged contraband. Accordingly, the recovered items were seized and the present accused/ petitioner was arrested.

by Mr. A. Chandran, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

: Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. M. Phukan, Public Prosecutor, Assam and Ms. P. Barua, Advocate. : Ms. M. Kechii, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland. : Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, Additional Advocate General, Mizoram.

Page No.# 2/16 Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024 Date of judgment : 11.11.2024 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This is first application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (S.439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 652 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Kotwali Datia, District Datia (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 331(5) and 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in custody since 25/9/2024. It is further argued that present FIR is counterblast of FIR lodged against injured Navalpal by applicant Vishal Pal bearing Crime No. 650/2024. Further submission is that as per allegations applicant/accused along with co-accused Rahul threw Naval Pal on ground and assaulted him with Danda. It is further argued that co-accused person namely Rahul has NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19406 2 MCRC-45528-2024 already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.43343/2024 and case of the present applicant is at parity with him, hence, he seeks parity and prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023 (439 of Cr.P.C.). for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 140/2020 registered at Police Station S.T.F, District Bhopal for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 25/07/2024 Prosecution story, in short, is that complaint was lodged by one Bharat Singh, who is the President of Dilip Buildcon Limited stating that cheque bearing No. 235994 amounting to Rs.4,200/- has been made and amount of Rs.8,84,62,302/- has been cloned on the aforesaid cheque. The said cheque was submitted for clearance on 02/03/2020 before Punjab National Bank Branch Bandra Mumbai (Maharashtra), where the aforesaid cheque has already been cleared on 20/08/2020 for the said amount of Rs.4,200/-issued in the name of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55317 2 MCRC-46936-2024 Subbavarapu Satyanarayan. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, case has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

IA No. 23672 of 2024, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Shri Aditya Ghuraiya, learned counsel appearing for complainant along with his associates is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.146 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC.

The appeal was heard on admission and reserved on 25/09/2024.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28/10/2021 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No.43/2016 [Bisan Lal Vs. Rajau and another] arising out of judgment and decree dated 29/06/2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Nainpur in Civil Suit No.24-A/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments on admission it was argued that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that Tahsildar Nainpur under the provision of Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has passed the order in favour of the appellant. In First Appeal, certain documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were produced but they were not taken on record. One registered sale deed was also produced.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.416/2011 registered at Police Station- Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioner is that he along-with other co- accused on the basis of forged power of attorney sold the plot to the complainant.

3. I.A.No.21627/2024 and I.A. No.21628/2024, applications for compromise have been filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 duly supported by their affidavits.

Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2 W.P. No.10021-2024

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC.

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 8 in S.C.No.1346/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1593/2018 of Poojappura Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 294(b), 506(ii), 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 03.09.2018, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly after abusing the defacto complainant and the third respondent, assaulted them, inflicted grievous injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 The petitioner, an Inspector attached to the Parassala Police Station, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, was the sole accused in V.C.No.2/2015 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (V.A.C.B.), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which accepted the refer report preferred in the Vigilance Case above-referred, but directed an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

‭ 1‬ ‭ ‭.R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN RAO‬ P PARTNER, M/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, WOODLAND JUNCTION,‬ ‭ M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16.‬ ‭ 2‬ ‭ ‭/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS,‬ M KOCHI-16.‬ ‭ 3‬ ‭ ‭TATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY‬ S THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,‬ ‭ ERNAKULAM.‬ ‭ ‭1 & R2 BY ADVS.‬ R SRI.JOHN BRITTO‬ ‭ SRI.C.A.RAJEEV‬ ‭ R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA C.‬ ‭ THIS‬‭ ‭ CRIMINAL‬‭ APPEAL‬‭HAVING‬‭ BEEN‬‭ FINALLY‬‭ HEARD‬‭ ON‬‭ 30.10.2024,‬ THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:‬ ‭ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 2‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"CR"‬ ‭J U D G M E N T‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭in‬ ‭CC‬ ‭No.238‬ ‭of‬ ‭2002‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭file‬ ‭of‬ ‭Additional‬ ‭Chief‬ ‭Judicial‬ ‭Magistrate,‬ ‭Ernakulam,‬ ‭filed‬ ‭this‬ ‭appeal‬ ‭challenging‬ ‭acquittal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬ ‭Instruments‬ ‭Act‬ ‭(hereinafter‬ ‭referred‬ ‭as 'the NI Act'), as per judgment dated 31.05.2007.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭M/s.Sree‬ ‭Gokulam‬ ‭Chit‬ ‭&‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Company,‬‭is‬‭a‬‭Private‬‭Limited‬‭company‬‭having‬‭its‬‭registered‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭Chennai‬ ‭and‬ ‭a‬ ‭branch‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭MG‬ ‭Road,‬ ‭Ernakulam.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭represented‬ ‭by‬ ‭its‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭holder,‬ ‭who‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭company.‬‭He‬‭is‬‭empowered‬‭to‬‭institute‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭The‬ ‭2nd‬ ‭accused‬ ‭is‬ ‭M/s.Woodlands‬ ‭Jewellers‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬‭1st‬‭accused‬‭is‬‭its‬‭partner.‬‭Rs.2,13,000/-‬‭was‬‭due‬‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭towards‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭of‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭transactions,‬ ‭which‬‭the‬‭2nd‬‭accused‬‭had‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant-company.‬ ‭Towards‬ ‭discharge‬‭of‬‭that‬‭debt,‬‭the‬‭1st‬‭accused‬‭issued‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.12.2001,‬ ‭assuring‬ ‭that,‬ ‭it‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭encashed‬ ‭on‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 3‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭presentation‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭Bank.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭presented‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭for‬ ‭collection‬ ‭but‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason,‬ ‭'A/c‬ ‭transferred‬ ‭to‬ ‭suit‬ ‭file.‬ ‭No‬ ‭Balance.',‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭Ext.P3‬ ‭memo.‬ ‭Complainant‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭registered‬ ‭lawyer‬ ‭notice‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭and‬ ‭in‬‭spite‬‭of‬‭receipt‬‭of‬‭notice,‬‭they‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭repay‬ ‭that‬ ‭amount,‬ ‭though‬ ‭a‬ ‭reply‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭with‬ ‭untenable contentions. Hence the complaint.‬ ‭3.‬ ‭After‬ ‭taking‬ ‭cognizance‬ ‭and‬ ‭on‬ ‭appearance‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court,‬ ‭particulars‬ ‭of‬ ‭offence‬ ‭were‬ ‭read‬ ‭over‬ ‭and‬ ‭explained,‬ ‭to‬ ‭which,‬ ‭they‬ ‭pleaded‬ ‭not‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭and‬‭claimed‬‭to‬‭be‬‭tried.‬‭Thereupon,‬‭PW1‬‭was‬‭examined‬‭and‬ ‭Exts.‬‭P1‬‭to‬‭P10‬‭and‬‭P10(a)‬‭were‬‭marked‬‭from‬‭the‬‭side‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭complainant.‬ ‭On‬ ‭closure‬ ‭of‬ ‭complainant's‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭were‬ ‭questioned‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭313‬ ‭of‬ ‭Cr.P.C.‬ ‭They‬ ‭denied‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭incriminating‬ ‭circumstances‬ ‭brought‬ ‭out‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭and‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭them,‬ ‭they‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭chitty‬ ‭conducted‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭terminated‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1998.‬ ‭They‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭amount‬ ‭due,‬ ‭and‬ ‭thereafter‬ ‭their‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭closed.‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 4‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭given‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭one,‬ ‭only‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security,‬ ‭when‬ ‭he‬ ‭bid‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty.‬ ‭After‬ ‭closing‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty,‬‭the‬‭accused‬ ‭demanded‬ ‭back‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭given‬ ‭as‬ ‭security,‬ ‭but‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭returned,‬ ‭saying‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭kept‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭head‬‭office‬ ‭at Madras. No defence evidence was adduced.‬ ‭4.‬‭On‬‭analysing‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭evidence,‬‭and‬‭on‬‭hearing‬ ‭the‬ ‭rival‬ ‭contentions‬ ‭from‬ ‭either‬ ‭side,‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭acquitted‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭finding‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭properly‬ ‭instituted,‬ ‭as‬ ‭PW1-Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭properly‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭or‬‭to‬‭give‬‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭failed‬ ‭to‬ ‭prove‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭Aggrieved‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭acquittal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the accused, the complainant has preferred this appeal.‬ ‭5.‬ ‭Heard‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬‭appellant‬‭and‬‭learned‬ ‭counsel for the respondents.‬ ‭6.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭since‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭Private‬ ‭Limited‬ ‭company,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭an‬ ‭incorporeal‬ ‭body,‬ ‭only‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee‬ ‭or‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 5‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭representative‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company‬‭can‬‭prefer‬‭the‬‭complaint.‬‭The‬ ‭company‬ ‭becomes‬ ‭a‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭and‬ ‭its‬ ‭employee‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭representative‬ ‭representing‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬‭proceedings‬‭becomes‬‭the‬‭de‬‭facto‬‭complainant.‬‭In‬‭a‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭with‬ ‭regard‬ ‭to‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭issued‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭purpose‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭142‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭will‬ ‭be‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭and‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭purpose‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭200‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Criminal‬ ‭Procedure‬ ‭Code,‬ ‭its‬ ‭employee,‬‭who‬‭represents‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭will‬‭be‬‭the‬‭de‬‭facto‬ ‭complainant.‬ ‭A‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭be‬ ‭represented‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee,‬ ‭or‬ ‭even‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭non-employee‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭and‬ ‭empowered,‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭or‬ ‭a‬ ‭power of attorney.‬ ‭7.‬ ‭According‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭empowered‬ ‭PW1-Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan,‬ ‭who‬ ‭was‬ ‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭extract‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭of‬ ‭Directors‬ ‭meeting,‬ ‭held‬ ‭on‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭at‬ ‭its‬ ‭corporate‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭Chennai,‬ ‭which‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 6‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭authorised‬‭the‬‭Assistant‬‭Manager‬‭Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan,‬‭to‬‭do‬‭the‬ ‭following acts:‬ ‭'‭(‬ 1)‬ ‭To‬‭institute,‬‭commence,‬‭prosecute,‬‭carry‬‭on‬‭or‬ ‭defend any suit or legal proceeding,‬ ‭(2)‬‭To‬‭sign‬‭and‬‭verify‬‭all‬‭plaints,‬‭written‬‭statements‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭pleadings,‬ ‭applications,‬ ‭affidavits,‬ ‭petitions‬ ‭or‬ ‭documents‬ ‭and‬ ‭produce‬ ‭them‬ ‭before any Court,‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭To‬ ‭appoint,‬ ‭engage‬ ‭and‬ ‭instruct‬ ‭any‬ ‭solicitor,‬ ‭Advocate‬ ‭or‬ ‭Advocates‬ ‭to‬ ‭act‬ ‭and‬ ‭plead‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭wise‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭sign‬ ‭any‬ ‭Vakalathnama‬ ‭or‬ ‭other authority in this regard,‬ ‭(4)‬ ‭To‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭in‬ ‭any Court of law, and‬ ‭(5)‬ ‭To‬ ‭do‬ ‭all‬ ‭other‬ ‭lawful‬ ‭acts,‬‭deeds‬‭and‬‭things‬‭in‬ ‭connection‬‭with‬‭filing‬‭of‬‭any‬‭suit‬‭and‬‭conducting‬ ‭any‬‭legal‬‭proceedings‬‭in‬‭any‬‭court‬‭of‬‭law‬‭and‬‭to‬ ‭withdraw the case on behalf of the Company.'‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 7‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭8.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭1‬ ‭and‬ ‭2‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬‭that,‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭is‬‭not‬‭admissible‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭has‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬‭proved‬‭by‬‭producing‬ ‭the‬‭original.‬‭He‬‭would‬‭rely‬‭on‬‭a‬‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬‭High‬‭Court‬‭of‬ ‭Judicature‬ ‭at‬ ‭Bombay‬ ‭in‬ ‭Ashish‬ ‭C.‬ ‭Shah‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭Sheth‬ ‭Developers‬‭Pvt.‬‭Ltd.‬‭&‬‭Others‬‭reported‬‭in‬‭[CDJ‬‭2011‬‭BHC‬ ‭339:‬‭2011‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭6506]‬‭,‬ ‭to‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Section‬ ‭194‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭of‬ ‭meetings‬ ‭kept‬ ‭in‬ ‭accordance‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭provisions‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭193,‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings‬ ‭recorded‬ ‭therein.‬ ‭No‬ ‭provision‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭Companies‬‭Act‬‭was‬‭brought‬‭to‬‭the‬‭notice‬‭of‬‭that‬‭court‬ ‭which‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭certified‬‭copy‬‭or‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭admissible‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭without‬ ‭proof‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭original.‬ ‭Section‬ ‭65(f)‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭secondary‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭given,‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭existence,‬ ‭condition‬‭and‬‭contents‬‭of‬‭the‬‭document,‬‭when‬‭the‬‭original‬‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭document,‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭a‬ ‭certified‬ ‭copy‬ ‭is‬ ‭permitted‬ ‭by‬‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭or‬ ‭by‬ ‭any‬ ‭other‬ ‭law‬ ‭in‬ ‭force‬ ‭in‬ ‭India,‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭given‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭He‬ ‭would‬ ‭rely‬ ‭on‬ ‭another‬ ‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 8‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭Delhi‬ ‭High‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭Escorts‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬‭Sai‬‭Autos‬‭and‬‭Others‬ ‭[1991‬ ‭Company‬ ‭Cases‬ ‭Volume‬ ‭72‬ ‭Page‬ ‭483]‬ ‭to‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭enough‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭book,‬ ‭containing‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭relied‬‭on,‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭brought to the court.‬ ‭9.‬ ‭Section‬ ‭119‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭2013‬ ‭which‬ ‭corresponds‬‭to‬‭Section‬‭196‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Companies‬‭Act,‬‭1956‬‭says‬ ‭that,‬‭the‬‭books‬‭containing‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭of‬‭the‬‭proceedings‬‭of‬ ‭any‬ ‭general‬‭meeting‬‭of‬‭a‬‭company‬‭or‬‭of‬‭a‬‭resolution‬‭passed‬ ‭by‬ ‭postal‬ ‭ballot‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭kept‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭registered‬ ‭office‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬‭and‬‭it‬‭shall‬‭be‬‭open‬‭for‬‭inspection‬‭by‬‭any‬‭member‬ ‭during‬ ‭business‬ ‭hours‬ ‭and‬ ‭if‬ ‭any‬ ‭member‬ ‭make‬ ‭a‬ ‭request,‬ ‭for‬ ‭a‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬‭it‬‭shall‬‭be‬‭furnished‬‭within‬‭seven‬ ‭days,‬ ‭on‬‭payment‬‭of‬‭prescribed‬‭fees.‬‭So,‬‭Section‬‭119‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭for‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬ ‭and‬ ‭moreover,‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬‭that,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭every‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭sent‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Registrar‬ ‭for‬ ‭recording‬ ‭the‬ ‭same‬ ‭within‬ ‭30‬ ‭days‬ ‭of‬ ‭passing‬ ‭the‬ ‭same.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭Section‬ ‭54‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭1956,‬ ‭a‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 9‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭document‬ ‭which‬ ‭requires‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭signed‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬‭director,‬‭the‬‭manager,‬‭the‬‭secretary‬‭or‬‭other‬ ‭authorised‬‭officer‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭and‬‭need‬‭not‬‭be‬‭under‬‭its‬ ‭common‬ ‭seal.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭according‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes,‬‭which‬‭contains‬‭the‬‭resolution‬‭authorising‬‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭or‬ ‭civil‬ ‭cases‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬‭etc.,‬‭signed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭director‬‭of‬‭Sree‬‭Gokulam‬‭Chit‬‭&‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Co.‬‭(P)‬‭Ltd.,‬‭was‬‭sufficient‬‭authority‬‭for‬‭PW1,‬‭to‬‭file‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭10.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭point‬ ‭out‬‭that,‬‭Ext.‬‭P8‬‭was‬‭not‬‭produced‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭complaint,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭produced‬ ‭subsequently‬ ‭after‬ ‭questioning‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭313‬‭of‬‭Cr.P.C.‬‭Relying‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬ ‭M.‬ ‭M.‬ ‭T.‬ ‭C.‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Medchil‬ ‭Chemicals‬ ‭And‬ ‭Pharma‬ ‭(P)‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭[2002‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭241],‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭contended‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority‬ ‭initially,‬ ‭still‬ ‭the‬‭company‬‭can‬‭rectify‬‭that‬‭defect,‬‭at‬‭any‬‭stage.‬‭In‬‭para‬‭12‬ ‭of that judgment, we read thus:‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 10‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭is‬ ‭made‬‭in‬‭the‬ ‭name‬ ‭of‬ ‭an‬ ‭incorporeal‬ ‭person‬ ‭(like‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭or‬ ‭corporation)‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭necessary‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭natural‬ ‭person‬ ‭represents‬‭such‬‭juristic‬‭person‬‭in‬‭the‬‭court.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭court‬ ‭looks‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭natural‬ ‭person‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭for‬ ‭all‬ ‭practical‬ ‭purposes.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭body‬ ‭corporate‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭must‬ ‭necessarily‬ ‭associate‬ ‭a‬ ‭human‬ ‭being‬ ‭as‬ ‭de‬‭facto‬‭complainant‬‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭former‬ ‭in‬ ‭court‬ ‭proceedings.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭further‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬‭no‬‭Magistrate‬‭shall‬‭insist‬‭that‬ ‭the‬‭particular‬‭person,‬‭whose‬‭statement‬‭was‬‭taken‬‭on‬ ‭oath‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭instance,‬ ‭alone‬ ‭can‬ ‭continue‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭till‬ ‭the‬ ‭end‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭there‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭occasions‬ ‭when‬ ‭different‬ ‭persons‬ ‭can‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭open‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭company‬‭to‬‭seek‬‭permission‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭court‬ ‭for‬ ‭sending‬ ‭any‬ ‭other‬ ‭person‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭court.‬ ‭Thus,‬ ‭even‬ ‭presuming,‬ ‭that‬ ‭initially‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority,‬ ‭still‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can,‬ ‭at‬ ‭any‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭rectify‬ ‭that‬ ‭defect.‬ ‭At‬ ‭a‬ ‭subsequent‬ ‭stage‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭send‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭who‬ ‭is‬ ‭competent‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complaints‬‭could‬‭thus‬‭not‬‭have‬‭been‬‭quashed‬‭on‬‭this‬ ‭ground."‬ ‭11.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭decision,‬ ‭Bhupesh‬ ‭Rathod‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Dayashankar‬ ‭Prasad‬ ‭Chaurasia‬ ‭and‬ ‭Another‬‭[‭2 ‬ 021‬ ‭(6)‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 11‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭KHC‬ ‭368],‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority‬ ‭initially,‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭at‬ ‭any‬ ‭stage‬ ‭rectify‬ ‭that‬ ‭defect‬ ‭by‬ ‭sending‬ ‭a‬ ‭competent‬ ‭person.‬ ‭In‬ ‭that‬ ‭case,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭was‬ ‭filed‬ ‭along‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint.‬ ‭An‬ ‭affidavit‬ ‭was‬ ‭brought‬ ‭on‬ ‭record‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭affirming‬ ‭the‬ ‭factum‬ ‭of‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Managing‬ ‭Director.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭accepted‬ ‭the‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution,‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director‬ ‭was‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭attend‬ ‭all‬ ‭such‬ ‭affairs‬ ‭which‬ ‭may‬‭be‬‭needed‬‭in‬‭the‬‭process‬‭of‬‭legal‬ ‭actions. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that judgment read thus:‬ ‭"‭2 ‬ 3.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭also‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭to‬ ‭note‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭Resolution‬‭was‬‭filed‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭complaint.‬‭An‬‭affidavit‬ ‭had‬ ‭been‬ ‭brought‬ ‭on‬ ‭record‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭Trial‬ ‭Court‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company,‬ ‭affirming‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭factum‬ ‭of‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director.‬‭A‬‭Manager‬‭or‬‭a‬‭Managing‬ ‭Director‬‭ordinarily‬‭by‬‭the‬‭very‬‭nomenclature‬‭can‬‭be‬‭taken‬ ‭to‬‭be‬‭the‬‭person‬‭in‬‭-‬‭charge‬‭of‬‭the‬‭affairs‬‭Company‬‭for‬‭its‬ ‭day‬ ‭-‬ ‭to‬ ‭-‬ ‭day‬‭management‬‭and‬‭within‬‭the‬‭activity‬‭would‬ ‭certainly‬‭be‬‭calling‬‭the‬‭act‬‭of‬‭approaching‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭either‬ ‭under‬ ‭civil‬ ‭law‬ ‭or‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭law‬ ‭for‬ ‭setting‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭in‬ ‭motion‬ ‭(Credential‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭State‬ ‭of‬ ‭Maharashtra,‬ ‭1998‬‭(3)‬‭Mah‬‭L J‬‭805).‬‭It‬‭would‬‭be‬‭too‬‭technical‬‭a‬‭view‬‭to‬ ‭take‬ ‭to‬ ‭defeat‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭merely‬ ‭because‬ ‭the‬ ‭body‬‭of‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 12‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭does‬ ‭not‬ ‭elaborate‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation.‬ ‭The‬ ‭artificial‬ ‭person‬ ‭being‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭had‬ ‭to‬ ‭act‬ ‭through‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭/‬ ‭official,‬ ‭which‬ ‭logically‬ ‭would‬ ‭include‬ ‭the‬ ‭Chairman‬ ‭or‬ ‭Managing‬‭Director.‬‭Only‬‭the‬‭existence‬‭of‬ ‭authorisation could be verified.‬ ‭24.‬‭While‬‭we‬‭turn‬‭to‬‭the‬‭authorisation‬‭in‬‭the‬‭present‬‭case,‬ ‭it‬‭was‬‭a‬‭copy‬‭and,‬‭thus,‬‭does‬‭not‬‭have‬‭to‬‭be‬‭signed‬‭by‬‭the‬ ‭Board‬‭Members,‬‭as‬‭that‬‭would‬‭form‬‭a‬‭part‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭meeting‬ ‭and‬ ‭not‬ ‭a‬ ‭true‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation.‬ ‭We‬ ‭also‬ ‭feel‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭wrongly‬ ‭concluded‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director‬‭was‬‭not‬‭authorised.‬ ‭If‬ ‭we‬ ‭peruse‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭form‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭certified‬ ‭copy‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Resolution,‬‭it‬‭states‬‭that‬‭legal‬‭action‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭taken‬ ‭against‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭for‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭cheques‬ ‭issued‬ ‭by‬ ‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭his‬ ‭liabilities‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Company.‬ ‭To‬ ‭this‬ ‭effect,‬ ‭Mr.‬ ‭Bhupesh‬ ‭Rathod‬ ‭/‬ ‭Sashikant‬ ‭Ganekar‬ ‭were‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭appoint‬ ‭advocates,‬ ‭issue‬ ‭notices‬ ‭through‬ ‭advocate,‬ ‭file‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭verifications‬ ‭on‬ ‭oath,‬ ‭appoint‬‭Constituent‬‭attorney‬‭to‬‭file‬‭complaint‬‭in‬‭the‬‭Court‬ ‭and‬ ‭attend‬ ‭all‬ ‭such‬ ‭affairs‬ ‭which‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭needed‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭process of legal actions. What more could be said?"‬ ‭12.‬ ‭Obviously‬ ‭Hon'ble‬‭Apex‬‭Court‬‭accepted‬‭copy‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭resolution‬‭to‬‭find‬‭the‬‭factum‬‭of‬‭authorisation‬‭in‬‭favour‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭Managing Director.‬ ‭13.‬‭In‬‭the‬‭case‬‭on‬‭hand,‬‭PW1-Assistant‬‭Manager‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭complainant-company‬‭filed‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬‭gave‬‭evidence‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 13‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬ ‭of‬ ‭directors‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭do‬ ‭so.‬ ‭The‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭only‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭book‬‭was‬‭produced,‬ ‭without‬ ‭producing‬ ‭the‬ ‭original,‬ ‭or‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭was‬‭produced‬ ‭at‬ ‭a‬ ‭belated‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭etc.,‬ ‭will‬ ‭not‬ ‭take‬ ‭away‬ ‭that‬ ‭right‬ ‭from‬ ‭him.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭he‬ ‭could‬ ‭have‬ ‭filed‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭given‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭also‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭strength‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬‭of‬‭directors,‬‭an‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭which‬ ‭was produced as Ext.P8.‬ ‭14.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭would‬‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭executed‬ ‭or‬ ‭authenticated‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬‭Notary‬‭Public‬‭and‬‭so,‬‭it‬‭could‬‭not‬‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭accepted‬ ‭to‬ ‭draw‬ ‭power‬ ‭for‬ ‭PW1,‬ ‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭According‬ ‭to‬ ‭him,‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬ ‭ingredients‬ ‭contained‬ ‭in‬ ‭Section‬ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭viz.‬ ‭execution‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public‬ ‭are‬ ‭very‬ ‭essential.‬ ‭The‬ ‭words‬ ‭'executed‬ ‭before',‬ ‭and‬ ‭'authenticated‬ ‭by',‬ ‭are‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬ ‭conditions‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭satisfied‬ ‭in‬ ‭order‬ ‭to‬ ‭attract‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 14‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act.‬‭He‬‭would‬‭rely‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬‭Bank‬ ‭of‬ ‭India‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭Allibhoy‬ ‭Mohammed‬ ‭and‬ ‭Others‬ ‭reported‬ ‭in‬ ‭[‬‭AIR‬ ‭2008‬ ‭BOMBAY‬ ‭81],‬ ‭to‬ ‭support‬ ‭his‬ ‭argument‬‭.‬‭In‬‭paragraph 18 of that judgment, we read thus:‬ ‭"18.‬ ‭Let‬ ‭me‬ ‭turn‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Legal‬ ‭Provisions;‬ ‭namely,‬ ‭Section‬ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭which‬ ‭lays‬ ‭down‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭shall‬ ‭presume‬ ‭due‬ ‭execution‬ ‭and‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭of‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭when‬ ‭executed‬ ‭before,‬ ‭and‬ ‭authenticated‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭or‬ ‭any‬ ‭Court,‬ ‭Judge,‬ ‭Magistrate,‬ ‭Indian‬ ‭Counsel‬ ‭or‬ ‭it's‬ ‭Vice‬ ‭Counsel‬ ‭or‬ ‭representative‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬‭Central‬‭Government,‬ ‭etc.‬ ‭This‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭is‬ ‭available‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬‭Power‬‭of‬‭Attorney‬‭holder‬‭provided‬‭mandate‬‭of‬ ‭Section 85 is duly followed."‬ ‭15.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭though‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬‭is‬‭produced‬‭and‬‭marked‬‭as‬‭Ext.P9,‬‭it‬‭does‬‭not‬‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭executed‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭in‬ ‭presence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭and‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭no‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭executed‬ ‭before‬ ‭her.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭some‬ ‭force‬‭in‬‭the‬‭argument‬‭put‬‭forward‬‭by‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭accepted,‬‭for‬‭want‬‭of‬‭proper‬‭execution‬‭and‬‭authentication‬‭as‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 15‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭envisaged under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.‬ ‭16.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that,‬‭even‬‭if‬‭the‬‭power‬‭of‬‭attorney‬‭is‬‭ignored,‬‭then‬‭also,‬‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭is‬ ‭filed‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭and‬ ‭he‬ ‭was‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭the‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭marked‬ ‭as‬ ‭Ext.P8.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭view‬ ‭that,‬ ‭though‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭accepted,‬ ‭being‬ ‭the‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭by‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭PW1‬ ‭was‬ ‭empowered to file the complaint and to give evidence.‬ ‭17.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭appellant‬‭would‬‭say‬‭that,‬‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭was‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭authority‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭or‬‭to‬‭give‬‭evidence,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭open‬‭for‬‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭and‬‭establish‬‭the‬‭same‬‭during‬‭the‬‭course‬‭of‬‭trial.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭TRL‬ ‭Krosaki‬ ‭Refractories‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭(M/s.)‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭SMS‬ ‭Asia‬ ‭Pvt.‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭and‬ ‭Another‬ ‭[2022‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭157:‬‭2022‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭KLT‬ ‭OnLine‬ ‭1043‬ ‭(SC)]‬ ‭made‬ ‭that‬ ‭position‬ ‭clear,‬ ‭by‬ ‭holding‬ ‭that,‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬‭complainant/payee‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭an‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭employee‬ ‭can‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 16‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭company.‬ ‭Such‬ ‭averment‬ ‭and‬ ‭prima‬ ‭facie‬ ‭material‬ ‭is‬ ‭sufficient‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭learned‬ ‭Magistrate‬ ‭to‬ ‭take‬ ‭cognizance‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭issue‬ ‭process.‬ ‭If‬ ‭at‬ ‭all‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭any‬ ‭serious‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭with‬ ‭regard‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭prosecuting‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭not‬ ‭being‬ ‭authorized,‬ ‭or‬ ‭if‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬‭demonstrated‬‭that‬‭a‬‭person‬‭who‬ ‭filed‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭has‬ ‭no‬‭knowledge‬‭of‬‭the‬‭transaction‬‭and‬ ‭as‬‭such‬‭that‬‭person‬‭could‬‭not‬‭have‬‭instituted‬‭and‬‭prosecuted‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭it‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭open‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭to‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭the‬‭position‬‭and‬‭establish‬‭the‬‭same‬‭during‬‭the‬‭course‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭trial.‬ ‭18.‬ ‭Though‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭authority‬ ‭of‬ ‭PW1,‬ ‭vide‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬‭as‬‭Ext.P9‬‭power‬‭of‬‭attorney,‬‭they‬‭did‬‭not‬‭take‬‭any‬‭steps‬ ‭to‬ ‭establish‬ ‭that‬ ‭position,‬ ‭during‬ ‭trial.‬‭So,‬‭the‬‭finding‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭trial‬‭court,‬‭that‬‭PW1‬‭was‬‭not‬‭authorized‬‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭basis‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution, is liable to be set aside.‬ ‭19.‬‭Coming‬‭to‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭of‬‭the‬‭case,‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬ ‭the‬‭appellant‬‭would‬‭submit‬‭that,‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭subscribed‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 17‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭seven‬ ‭kuries‬ ‭of‬ ‭Rs.5,00,000/-‬ ‭each,‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭company,‬ ‭and‬‭they‬‭auctioned‬‭that‬‭kuri‬‭on‬‭14.02.1997.‬‭They‬ ‭defaulted‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭and‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭liability,‬ ‭the‬ ‭1st‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭issued‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.12.2001‬ ‭for‬ ‭an‬ ‭amount‬ ‭of‬ ‭Rs.2,13,000/-.‬ ‭When‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭presented‬ ‭before‬ ‭Bank,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭returned‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason‬ ‭'A/c‬ ‭transferred‬ ‭to‬ ‭suit‬ ‭file.‬ ‭No‬ ‭balance.'‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭signature‬‭in‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭or‬‭the‬‭issuance‬‭of‬‭that‬‭cheque‬‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant.‬ ‭All‬ ‭statutory‬ ‭formalities‬ ‭to‬ ‭bring‬ ‭home‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭punishable‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act‬ ‭was‬ ‭complied‬ ‭with.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumptions‬ ‭available‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭118‬ ‭and‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act‬ ‭will‬ ‭come‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭aid‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭learned‬‭trial‬‭court‬‭went‬‭wrong‬‭in‬ ‭acquitting the accused.‬ ‭20.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭when‬ ‭they‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 18‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭balance‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭given‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭signed‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭and‬ ‭even‬ ‭after‬ ‭they‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭fully,‬ ‭and‬ ‭closed‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri,‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭entrusted‬‭with‬‭the‬‭appellant‬‭was‬‭not‬‭returned.‬ ‭Only‬‭to‬‭see,‬ ‭whether‬ ‭they‬ ‭could‬ ‭extract‬ ‭some‬ ‭more‬ ‭money‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭they‬ ‭filed‬ ‭a‬ ‭false‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭misusing‬ ‭that‬ ‭blank cheque.‬ ‭21.‬‭Relying‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Hon'ble‬‭Apex‬‭Court‬‭in‬ ‭Bir‬ ‭Singh‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Mukesh‬ ‭Kumar‬‭[(2019)‬ ‭4‬ ‭SCC‬ ‭197],‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭argue‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭leaf,‬ ‭voluntary‬ ‭signed‬ ‭and‬ ‭handed‬ ‭over‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭towards‬ ‭some‬ ‭payment,‬ ‭would‬ ‭attract‬ ‭presumption‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭139‬‭of‬‭the‬‭NI‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬ ‭of‬ ‭any‬ ‭cogent‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭issued‬ ‭in‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭Paragraphs‬ ‭33‬ ‭to‬ ‭36‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭judgment read thus:‬ ‭"33.‬ ‭A‬ ‭meaningful‬ ‭reading‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭provisions‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬ ‭Instruments‬ ‭Act‬ ‭including,‬ ‭in‬ ‭particular,‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭20,‬ ‭87‬ ‭and‬ ‭139,‬ ‭makes‬ ‭it‬ ‭amply‬ ‭clear‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭who‬ ‭signs‬ ‭a‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭and‬ ‭makes‬ ‭it‬ ‭over‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭payee‬‭remains‬‭liable‬‭unless‬‭he‬‭adduces‬‭evidence‬‭to‬‭rebut‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 19‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭had‬ ‭been‬ ‭issued‬ ‭for‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭debt‬ ‭or‬ ‭in‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭liability.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭immaterial‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭may‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭filled‬ ‭in‬ ‭by‬ ‭any‬ ‭person‬ ‭other‬ ‭than‬ ‭the‬ ‭drawer,‬ ‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭duly‬ ‭signed‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭drawer.‬ ‭If‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭otherwise‬ ‭valid,‬ ‭the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.‬ ‭34.‬‭If‬‭a‬‭signed‬‭blank‬‭cheque‬‭is‬‭voluntarily‬‭presented‬‭to‬‭a‬ ‭payee,‬‭towards‬‭some‬‭payment,‬‭the‬‭payee‬‭may‬‭fill‬‭up‬‭the‬ ‭amount‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭particulars.‬ ‭This‬ ‭in‬ ‭itself‬ ‭would‬ ‭not‬ ‭invalidate‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque.‬ ‭The‬ ‭onus‬ ‭would‬ ‭still‬ ‭be‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬‭to‬‭prove‬‭that‬‭the‬‭cheque‬‭was‬‭not‬‭in‬‭discharge‬‭of‬ ‭a debt or liability by adducing evidence.‬ ‭35.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭not‬‭the‬‭case‬‭of‬‭the‬‭respondent‬‭-‬‭accused‬‭that‬‭he‬ ‭either‬ ‭signed‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭or‬ ‭parted‬ ‭with‬ ‭it‬ ‭under‬ ‭any‬ ‭threat‬ ‭or‬ ‭coercion.‬ ‭Nor‬ ‭is‬‭it‬‭the‬‭case‬‭of‬‭the‬‭respondent‬‭-‬ ‭accused‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭unfilled‬‭signed‬‭cheque‬‭had‬‭been‬‭stolen.‬ ‭The‬ ‭existence‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭fiduciary‬ ‭relationship‬ ‭between‬ ‭the‬ ‭payee‬‭of‬‭a‬‭cheque‬‭and‬‭its‬‭drawer,‬‭would‬‭not‬‭disentitle‬‭the‬ ‭payee‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭benefit‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭139‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Negotiable‬‭Instruments‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬‭of‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭of‬ ‭exercise‬ ‭of‬ ‭undue‬ ‭influence‬ ‭or‬ ‭coercion.‬‭The‬ ‭second question is also answered in the negative.‬ ‭36.‬ ‭Even‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭leaf,‬ ‭voluntarily‬ ‭signed‬ ‭and‬ ‭handed‬ ‭over‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭towards‬ ‭some‬ ‭payment,‬ ‭would‬ ‭attract‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬‭Instruments‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬‭of‬‭any‬ ‭cogent‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬‭that‬‭the‬‭cheque‬‭was‬‭not‬‭issued‬ ‭in discharge of a debt."‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 20‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭22.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭issuance‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭though‬‭according‬‭to‬‭them,‬‭it‬ ‭was‬‭issued‬‭as‬‭a‬‭blank‬‭signed‬‭cheque.‬‭They‬‭are‬‭not‬‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭fact‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭which‬ ‭they‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭and‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭were‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭paid,‬ ‭even‬‭after‬‭auctioning‬‭the‬‭kuri.‬‭Obviously,‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭was‬ ‭issued‬‭not‬‭under‬‭any‬‭threat‬‭or‬‭coercion,‬‭and‬‭even‬‭according‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭respondents,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭issued‬‭as‬‭a‬‭security‬‭for‬‭the‬‭future‬ ‭instalments‬‭to‬‭be‬‭paid‬‭in‬‭the‬‭kuri,‬‭which‬‭they‬‭had‬‭auctioned.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Moideen‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Johny‬ ‭[2006‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭1055],‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security,‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭in‬ ‭possession‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭can‬ ‭enter‬ ‭the‬ ‭amount‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭liability‬ ‭and‬ ‭present‬ ‭it‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭bank.‬ ‭When‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭issued‬ ‭by‬ ‭one‬ ‭to‬ ‭another,‬ ‭it‬ ‭gives‬ ‭an‬ ‭authority‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭person,‬ ‭to‬ ‭whom‬ ‭it‬‭is‬‭issued,‬‭to‬‭fill‬‭it‬‭up‬‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭appropriate‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭necessary‬‭entities‬‭regarding‬ ‭the‬ ‭liability,‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭present‬ ‭it‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭bank.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭event‬ ‭of‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭absolved‬ ‭from his liability.‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 21‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭23.‬‭Another‬‭contention‬‭taken‬‭up‬‭by‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭is‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭produce‬ ‭the‬ ‭account‬ ‭books‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭Rs.2,13,000/-‬‭was‬ ‭due‬ ‭from‬ ‭them.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that,‬ ‭production‬ ‭of‬ ‭account‬ ‭books‬ ‭etc.‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭civil‬ ‭court,‬ ‭but‬ ‭as‬ ‭far‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭criminal‬‭case‬‭under‬ ‭Section‬‭138‬‭of‬‭the‬‭NI‬‭Act‬‭is‬‭concerned,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭presumption‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭holder‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭and‬ ‭so‬ ‭the‬ ‭burden‬ ‭is‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬‭to‬‭rebut‬‭that‬‭presumption.‬‭She‬‭would‬ ‭rely‬ ‭on‬ ‭a‬ ‭decision‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬‭in‬‭Chandel‬‭D.‬ ‭K.‬‭v.‬‭M/s.‬‭Wockhardt‬‭Ltd.‬‭and‬‭Another‬‭[2020‬‭KHC‬‭6204]‬ ‭which‬ ‭says‬ ‭that‬ ‭production‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭account‬ ‭books/cash‬ ‭book‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭civil‬ ‭court;‬ ‭but‬ ‭may‬ ‭not‬ ‭be‬ ‭so,‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭case‬ ‭filed‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭because‬ ‭of‬ ‭the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque.‬ ‭24.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭fact‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭had‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭kuries‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭commenced‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1996,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭terminated‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1998.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 22‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭first‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭passbook,‬ ‭a‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭is‬ ‭found‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭date‬‭14.02.1997‬‭.‬‭According‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭the‬‭date‬ ‭on‬‭which‬‭that‬‭kuri‬‭was‬‭auctioned‬‭by‬‭the‬‭respondents.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬ ‭10th‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭passbook,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭an‬‭endorsement‬‭in‬‭red‬ ‭ink,‬ ‭as‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'.‬ ‭So‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭the‬ ‭endorsement‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'‬ ‭and‬‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page‬‭of‬‭the‬‭passbook,‬‭will‬‭show‬‭that‬ ‭he‬ ‭had‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭amount‬ ‭due‬ ‭under‬ ‭that‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭and‬ ‭so,‬ ‭no amount was due, so as to issue Ext.P2 cheque.‬ ‭25.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬‭if‬‭the‬‭kuri‬‭was‬‭closed‬‭on‬‭14.12.1998,‬‭the‬‭passbook‬‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭the‬ ‭seal‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed'‬‭,‬ ‭just‬ ‭like‬ ‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭was‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭definitely‬ ‭there‬ ‭would‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭paid‬ ‭monthly,‬ ‭till‬ ‭the‬ ‭termination‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭kuri.‬ ‭When‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭alleging‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭it‬‭is‬‭their‬‭burden,‬‭to‬‭prove‬ ‭it‬‭with‬‭cogent‬‭evidence.‬‭They‬‭could‬‭have‬‭very‬‭well‬‭called‬‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭Registers‬ ‭pertaining‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 23‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭amount‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭paid‬ ‭by‬ ‭them.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭since‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭custody‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭they‬ ‭themselves‬ ‭might‬ ‭have‬ ‭made‬ ‭the‬ ‭red‬ ‭ink‬ ‭entry‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭the‬ ‭manipulation‬ ‭as‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭ruled‬ ‭out.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭seems‬ ‭to‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭carried‬ ‭away‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭seen‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭dues‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭was‬ ‭paid‬ ‭off‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents.‬ ‭Obviously,‬ ‭that‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭was‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭payment‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭company, when the kuri was auctioned by the respondents.‬ ‭26.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭would‬‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭on‬ ‭receipt‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭lawyer‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭they‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭reply‬ ‭notice‬ ‭disowning‬ ‭the‬‭liability‬‭and‬‭disputing‬‭issuance‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque.‬ ‭But‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭produced‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭on‬ ‭receipt‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭stated‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭facing‬ ‭financial‬ ‭difficulties‬ ‭and‬ ‭they‬ ‭were‬ ‭making‬ ‭every‬ ‭effort‬ ‭to‬ ‭raise‬ ‭funds‬ ‭to‬ ‭settle‬ ‭the‬ ‭account.‬ ‭But,‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 24‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭they‬ ‭never‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭reply‬‭notice‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant.‬‭But‬‭Ext.P10(a)‬‭postal‬‭cover‬‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭that,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭to‬ ‭Adv.Sri.K.S.Babu,‬ ‭who‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice.‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭notice‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭Ext.P10‬‭notice‬‭are‬‭on‬‭the‬‭same‬‭day‬‭i.e.‬‭10.01.2002.‬ ‭But‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭was‬ ‭addressed‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭directly.‬ ‭The‬ ‭postal‬‭receipt‬‭or‬‭acknowledgement‬‭card‬‭of‬‭Ext.D2‬‭notice‬‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭produced‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭advocate,‬ ‭normally‬ ‭the‬ ‭reply‬ ‭also‬ ‭should‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭given‬ ‭to‬ ‭that‬ ‭advocate.‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice‬ ‭along‬ ‭with‬ ‭Ext.P10(a)‬ ‭cover‬ ‭seem‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭more‬ ‭reliable.‬ ‭On‬ ‭going‬ ‭through‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭it‬ ‭could‬ ‭be‬ ‭seen‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭admitting‬ ‭their‬ ‭liability‬ ‭to‬ ‭certain‬ ‭extent,‬ ‭towards the balance amount due on prized chits.‬ ‭27.‬‭Adverting‬‭to‬‭the‬‭aforesaid‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭circumstances,‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭view‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭went‬ ‭wrong‬ ‭in‬ ‭acquitting‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused.‬ ‭So,‬‭the‬‭impugned‬‭judgment‬‭is‬‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭set‬ ‭aside.‬ ‭There‬ ‭is‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 25‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt,‬ ‭and‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason‬‭'A/c‬‭transferred‬‭to‬‭suit‬‭file.‬‭No‬‭balance.'‬‭The‬‭appellant‬ ‭had‬ ‭complied‬ ‭with‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭statutory‬ ‭formalities‬ ‭in‬ ‭order‬ ‭to‬ ‭attract‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭punishable‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act.‬‭The‬‭complainant‬‭was‬‭authorized‬‭as‬‭per‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution,‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭failed‬ ‭to‬ ‭rebut‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumptions‬ ‭available‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭118‬ ‭and‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭1‬ ‭and‬ ‭2‬ ‭are‬ ‭found‬ ‭guilty‬‭under‬ ‭Section 138 of the NI Act.‬ ‭28.‬ ‭As‬ ‭per‬ ‭Section‬ ‭141‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭committing‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭every‬ ‭person‬ ‭who,‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭time‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭was‬ ‭committed,‬ ‭was‬ ‭in‬ ‭charge‬ ‭of,‬ ‭and‬ ‭was‬ ‭responsible‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭business‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭deemed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭and‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭proceeded‬ ‭against‬ ‭and‬ ‭punished‬ ‭accordingly‬‭. Section 141(2) of the NI Act reads thus:‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 26‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"141. Offences by companies. --‬ ‭(1) xxx xxx xxx‬ ‭(2)‬‭Notwithstanding‬‭anything‬‭contained‬‭in‬‭sub-section‬‭(1),‬ ‭where‬ ‭any‬ ‭offence‬ ‭under‬ ‭this‬‭Act,‬‭has‬‭been‬‭committed‬‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭proved‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭committed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭consent‬ ‭or‬ ‭connivance‬ ‭of,‬ ‭or‬ ‭is‬ ‭attributable‬ ‭to,‬ ‭any‬ ‭neglect‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭part‬ ‭of,‬ ‭any‬ ‭director,‬ ‭manager,‬ ‭secretary‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭such‬ ‭director,‬ ‭manager,‬ ‭secretary‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭officer‬ ‭shall‬ ‭also‬ ‭be‬ ‭deemed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭offence‬ ‭and‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be proceeded against and punished accordingly.‬ ‭Explanation‬‭: For the purposes, of this section,--‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭"company"‬‭means‬‭any‬‭body‬‭corporate‬‭and‬‭includes‬‭a‬ ‭firm or other association of individuals; and‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭"director",‬ ‭in‬ ‭relation‬ ‭to‬ ‭a‬ ‭firm,‬ ‭means‬ ‭a‬ ‭partner‬ ‭in‬ ‭the firm."‬ ‭29.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭the‬ ‭2nd‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭partnership‬ ‭firm‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭1st‬ ‭res

This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/accused in S.C.No.561 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1)(i), 363 of IPC, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is 4 years.

Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024

in &

2. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (`Cr.P.C' for short) the sole accused in S.C.No.280/2016 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences relating to atrocities against Women and Children including Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (`POCSO') Cases, Alappuzha, impugns order in Crl.M.P.No.975/2022 dated 12.04.2022.

2. When this matter came up for admission on 19.04.2022, this Court stayed the proceedings in S.C.No.280/2016 till 18.05.2022 and thereafter stay has been extended periodically.

3. As on 16.10.2024, the learned Special Judge sent a 2024:KER:83133 letter to this Court as directed by the committee of this Court to monitor and regulate the process of trials under the POCSO Act stating that this case comes under the 5+ year old category and that all further proceedings in this case have been stayed by this Court and is one among the pending oldest cases before the Special Court.

Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 8 th accused in Crime No.1360/2024 of the Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2024.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had during the period from September 2023 to 13.05.2024 induced the defacto complainant to make investments in their companies named 'INVESCO CAPITAL' and 'GOLDMANS SACHS'. Accordingly the defacto 2024:KER:83459 complainant invested Rs.7,65,00,000/- by transferring the amount from his and his wife's joint account believing that he would receive Rs.39,72,85,929/-. However, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 1st accused in Crime No.796/2024 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 08.09.2024.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 11.06.2024, at 11:45 hours, the accused 1 to 3 had pledged spurious gold ornaments, weighing 16.150 grams, with the defacto complainant and received Rs.69,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 882/2024 of the Thrissur West Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 506, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; one day between 10 and 15th of May 2023, the accused wrongfully confined the survivor in a class room at Thrissur Kerala Varma College, and after causing hurt to her, he undressed and committed rape on her. The accused also uttered obscene words and intimidated the survivor, saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would murder her. Thus, the accused has 2024:KER:83438 committed the above offences.

The application is filed under Sec.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') by the 4th accused in Crime No.376/2024 of the Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against six accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii) (A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 6(b) r/w Section 24 of the COTPA Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2024

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused 1 to 6 had hatched a conspiracy to procure narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance to make illegal profit. Accordingly, the 1st accused received Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th accused and went in a car BAIL APPL. NO. 6026 OF 2024 2024:KER:83332 bearing registration No.KL-07-CA-4056 to Bangalore and purchased 180 grams of MDMA from the 6 th accused. After the accused 1 to 3 returned back to Kerala with the contraband article, they handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the 4th accused. They also proposed to give 100 grams of MDMA to the 5 th accused for the money he paid the 1st accused. While the 1st accused was traveling in the car with 100 grams of MDMA, 4 grams of ganja and Hans, to hand over the same to the 5th accused, the Detecting Officer intercepted the vehicle at Maradu, Ernakulam and seized 101.09 grams of MDMA from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.