CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs Ajit Singh and Another

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 January 2002 · Citation: (2002) 5 MPHT 459 : (2003) 1 MPJR 361

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.S. Azad, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 317, 482 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Cr. Case No. 4165 with M. Cr. C. No''s. 4158-4164 and 4166 of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 421 words

Narain Singh "Azad", J.

Arguments heard.

This order shall dispose of the following cases also :--

(1) M.G.C. No. 4158/2000 (R.T. No. 256/99)

(2) M.Cr.C No. 4159/2000 (R.T. No. 553/99)

(3) M.Cr.C. No. 4160/2000 (R.T. No. 254/99)

(4) M.Cr.C. No. 4161/2000 (R.T. No. 552/99)

(5) M.Cr.C. No. 4162/2000 (R.T. No. 1034/98)

(6) M.Cr.C. No. 4163/2000 (R.T. No. 551/99)

(7) M.Cr.C. No. 4164/2000 (R.T. No. 255/99)

(8) M.Cr.C. No. 4165/2000 (R.T. No. 258/99)

(9) M.Cr.C No. 4166/2000 (R.T. No. 1550/98).

In criminal complaint filed by this petitioner (in M.Cr.C. No. 4147/2000) against the respondents, which is registered as R.T. No. 555/99 in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal, for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the learned Magistrate rejected this prayer of these petitioners on 16-10-1999 that they are not required to execute personal bond, so also the surety bonds, as the case is that of summons nature. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 427/99 which stood disposed of in their favour on 8-2-2000 by VIIIth AST, Bhopal. Now the petitioner/complainant has come to this Court seeking relief of setting aside the order dated 8-2-2000 passed by VIIIth AST, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 427/99.

In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 664, it is held by Their Lordships of Supreme Court that while considering the exemption application moved on behalf of the accused u/s 317 of Cr.PC, in summons cases, if the Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interest of justice, he may grant the benefit of exemption to the accused on this undertaking, to the satisfaction of the Court, that he would not dispute the identity of the particular accused and that a Counsel would remain present on his behalf in the Court on the dates of hearing, who would not make any objection in taking evidence in the absence of the accused.

In the light of aforesaid legal position, the Magistrate was not obliged to ask the accused to execute a personal bond, in addition to a surety bond for securing his attendance on the further dates, which may be fixed in the case.

Consequently, the order dated 8-2-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, is found to be just and proper and no interference by this Court under inherent powers provided u/s 482, Cr.PC is called for.

In the result, this petition along with aforesaid nine petitions, is disallowed and rejected.