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.

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

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:

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:

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal1 is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 19 February 2013 in terms of which an Award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal2 has come to be upheld. In terms of the Award dated 05 October 2005, the petitioner- appellant was directed to frame a policy of regularisation in respect of the respondent workmen. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned LPA Tribunal Single Judge have essentially held against the appellant on the ground that the engagement of the respondent-workmen through a contractor was merely a ruse to overcome the obligations which would have stood attached in case it were to be recognized to be the principal employer.

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:-

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. In this original application, registered suo motu, the Tribunal is considering the issue of delay in filing the reports by the State Expert Committees and its effect on the unclassed forests.

2. By order dated 31.07.2024, 38 respondents were impleaded and notices have been served upon them.

3. Replies on behalf of only UT of Ladakh and State of Andhra Pradesh have been received.

4. The previous order also indicates that there are 7 States, i.e., Goa, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, who do not appear to have constituted the Expert Committees till now.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC submits that the Ministry is in touch with the authorities of all the States and the last meeting was held on 03.10.2024 and that after collecting the relevant information, the MoEF&CC will file the reply within four weeks.

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. In this original application, registered suo motu, the issue under consideration relates to the large-scale encroachment on the forest land across the country.

2. The Tribunal by the order dated 19.04.2024 had required the States/Union Territories(UTs) to furnish the detailed information in the format provided in that order and also to supply a copy thereof to Counsel for the Respondent No.1, MoEF&CC, who was directed to compile the information in a separate table which was also provided in that order.

3. The MoEF&CC has filed the interim affidavit dated 30.07.2024 disclosing that the reply was received by the MoEF&CC by 23 States/UTs out of which, 16 States/UTs had provided the data in the prescribed format.

1. This original application is registered suo motu on the basis of the news item titled "दे हरादन ू : उ राखंड के 104 वग कलोमीटर जंगल पर क ज़ा... सैकड़ो पेड़ काटे , वन वभाग क भू मका सवालो म" appearing in 'Amar Ujala' dated 22.08.2024.

2. The news item relates to the encroachment of forests in Uttarakhand. As per the article, a total of 104.54 square kilometres of forest in 39 forest divisions of the State is occupied by encroachers. The news item questions the inaction by the Forest Department as the encroachment took place gradually, yet no action has been taken by the authorities. The article mentions that 11 thousand hectares of forest land in the State were encroached and the Forest Department did not even know about it and upon gaining knowledge, only 11.5 hectares of forest land were freed from encroachment. Furthermore, the Uttarakhand Forest Statistics Book published in 2017-2018 reported that 9,506.2249 hectares of forest land were encroached upon. However, under the CM's instructions, a recent campaign initiated by the Forest Department last year reported an increased figure of 11,814.47 hectares of encroached forest land. This raises questions about whether the increase occurred over the past three years or if it reflects earlier encroachments that were previously unreported.

1. After having heard the argument of learned counsel for applicant for half an hour, he could not convince us as to how Relief (A) sought in the present Original Application regarding quashing of the purported Forest Clearance dated 29.09.2016, which is annexed at page nos.47 to 49 of the paper book and purported Forest Clearance dated 27.03.2017, which is annexed at page nos.50 to 53 of the paper book, which are issued in favours of M/s Shri Mandar Gadkari and M/s. Salim Khan and others respectively, under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 for regularization of constructed bungalows, servant quarters, poultry, garage, swimming pool with Jacuzzi, road and laying of underground water pipeline and electricity cable along the road and other allied purposes in Raigad District of Maharashtra, subject to the conditions contained therein, fall in our jurisdiction because the said Act i.e. Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 does not fall in the Schedule- I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

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.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved with the order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Calcutta, West Bengal in Case No.CS59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC directing the petitioner for his appearance on 11.07.2024 and the order dated 11.07.2024 of the said Court by which it issued Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner for his appearance in said Case No.CS/59941/24.

3. Petitioner has filed this application under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India stating that as per the Business Loan Agreement dated 25.11.2023, with Loan Application ID No. 107024 the agreement was executed at Chennai with the respondent No.1, whereas, the borrower i.e., the petitioner/lonee is from the District of Karimganj, Assam, therefore, the Court at West Bengal does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any such proceeding on the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, Mintifi Finserve Private Limited under Section 200 CrPC with charge under Sections 406/420 IPC against the petitioner before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th at Calcutta being registered as Case No.CS/59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC. According to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th at Calcutta, West Bengal on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

1. This criminal appeal (first) under Section 14-(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior, in Bail Application No.2473/2024 whereby the application moved by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.81/2023 registered at Police Station Gwalior District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 346, 363, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

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

[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;

[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

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time.

2

We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage.

The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of.

The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.

The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.

The Court: Liberty is granted to the advocate-on-record for the claimant to correct the description of the application in the cause title.

By communication dated September 3, 2024, learned sole arbitrator appointed by the court informed the parties that he had resigned from the matter. He thus refused to act as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

2

Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a suit. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) is also pending before the learned Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. As such, this Court must refrain from appointing an arbitrator as the issues involved in the suit are yet to be decided and the application under Section 8 of the said Act has been filed with similar prayers.

The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against an order dated October 26, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.1842/Kol/2017, for the assessment order 2009-10.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additional made by the A.O. towards unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions overlooking the fact that not even a single Director of the share subscribing companies appeared before the Assessing Officer nor provided a valid reason for their non-appearance?

Bivas Pattanayak, J. :-

1. The instant execution case has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-judgment debtor for execution of a decree dated 24th March, 2021 for a sum of Rs.12,54,607.68/-.

2. In its affidavit in support of tabular statement the decree holder contends that the judgement-debtor holds immovable property namely an office at Golpark Co-operative Housing Society, Flat no. 13/B2, 4th Floor, 49C, Govindapur Road, Lake Gardens (near Jodhpur Market), Kolkata-

2

700068 and operates bank account at UCO Bank, Park Circus Branch, Kolkata-700014.

3. The judgement debtor through its partner filed its affidavit of assets who contends that he possesses the above mentioned flat and the bank account.

1 This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case F.I.R. No.0108 dated 19.09.2021 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

2. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 255 grams of heroin.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years, 1 month and 17 days. Trial is proceedings at snail's pace as by now only 5 out of 11 witnesses could be examined.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

Business Wire India

McKay Brothers (“McKay” or “the Company”), a market leader in ultra-low latency market data and wireless networks, today announced that Citadel Securities has made a minority investment in McKay to support the continued growth of its global data and connectivity business.

Under the terms of the transaction, Citadel Securities will receive an equity stake in the Company and McKay’s co-founders, Stéphane Tyč and Bob Meade, will continue to hold the controlling majority of the Company’s equity. Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

McKay will continue to operate independently and under its core business principles, which include offering its subscribers a level playing field and equal access to the lowest latency service.

Bob Meade, McKay co-founder, said: “Citadel Securities’ investment provides ongoing validation of McKay’s vendor model, which offers services on a level playing field to all subscribers. The investment also bolsters our already strong financial position and supports our commitment to innovation and technical excellence.”

Stéphane Tyč, McKay co-founder, added: “Our service vendor model makes our lowest latency available to all subscribers and ensures it cannot be dominated by any market participant, contributing to fair and competitive markets. This agreement with Citadel Securities maintains McKay’s autonomy and supports our continued growth.”

About McKay Brothers:

McKay - through McKay Brothers, LLC, Quincy Data, LLC and other controlled affiliates - are the world’s leading providers of ultra-low latency market data technology and wireless infrastructure. The company has served the financial markets' most demanding trading firms since 2012. McKay services are anchored by faster-than-fiber wireless networks interconnecting major global financial centers with curated market data and time-sensitive trade messages. All services are provided under a Level Playing Field policy, meaning the fastest services are made available to any subscriber.

Learn more at: www.mckay-brothers.com and www.quincy-data.com

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241111274615/en/

Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

1. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to the Respondents authorities in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for not declaring the land as the forest land of the petitioner of Mauza- Targachha of Khata No. Khesra No. 1 of Thana No. 517 of Area 27 acres 61 decimal of District- Banka which belongs to the petitioner upon which, this petitioner planted the trees and cultivated the land twice a year.

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

1. By this judgment, I shall decide present claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, filed by the petitioners/ legal representatives of Mr. Yugal Kishor (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who sustained fatal injury in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition and the documents annexed thereto are that on 06.11.2020 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased as pillion rider on a scooter (make-Activa) bearing registration no. HR51AN-8607, being driven by his colleague Dev Narayan Thakur at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was going to his house from his workplace. When they reached near Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. HR63B-5016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.1 Sunil at a high speed, rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit the scooter with a great force. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and came under the wheel of the offending truck and sustained head injury. The deceased was immediately removed to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared and he was declared 'brought dead' and his postmortem was conducted at Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Party wise detailed break up of the amount pertaining to each of the debtors whose debt has been assigned vide aforesaid agreement.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Details of Actual amount paid by the ARC to the bank pertaining to each individual debt.

(iii) Copies of Correspondence with regards to the above between the Assignor (Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd) and Assignee Invent Assets Securitisation Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd prior to and subsequent to the alleged Assignment

This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 & 2, thereby rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and ordered for maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month, payable by the third respondent to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is his daughter. The petitioner has one daughter and one son. The petitioner had purchased a house plot comprised in S.F.No.144/2 at Koranampatti, Edappadi Taluk, Salem district, to an extent of 3744½ sq.ft., in which the petitioner also constructed a small hut and living there. It was purchased by him through registered sale deed dated 24.11.2010 vide document No.4313 of 2010. After marriage of the third respondent, due to love and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis affection, the petitioner had executed settlement deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the third respondent on 13.12.2019 vide registered document No.5380 of 2019. However, the third respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner to vacate the hut which is put up in the settled property.

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to recompute the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, who are all retired from service under the 2nd respondent management on the basis of average salary drawn by them for the last 10 months prior to their retirement and also direct the second respondent to pay arrears of pension.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with ICICI Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein by the Scheme of amalgamation with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees of Bank of Madura are protected.

11.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 498-A / 323 / 342 / 506 /307 / 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of D.P. Act in G.R. Case No.1305 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur arising out of Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.373 of 2024.

11.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 341/384/294/506/307/323/ 325/379 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.87 of 2018 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara arising out of Nimapara P.S. Case No.33 of 2018.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.2915 of 2018. The said bail application was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court on 30.01.2019 thereby directing the Petitioner to surrender before the court below and move an application for bail with a corresponding direction to the learned court in seisin over the matter to dispose of the bail application on the very same day. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that due to communication gap with the conducting counsel, the Petitioner could not take advantage of order dated 30.01.2019.

12.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/ 468/471/ 420/ 120-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4/5 of The Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act in 1.C.C. No.1498 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.953 of 2014 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2014.

11.11.2024 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Senior learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act in C.T. Case No.399 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.11 of 2024.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Mahakalpara P.S. Case No.218 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2351 of 2022, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307, 506, 325, 34 of I.P.C.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.