11.11.2024

1. In this case, the appellant was granted bail on 30.12.2019 by this Court, however, till date, he has not been released because no one is there to stand surety for him.

2. This Court takes note of the fact that even after five years of passing of the bail order in his favour, the appellant continues to languish in prison, as nobody has come forward to stand surety for him. The facts disclose that there is prima facie violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Under the circumstances, the appellant shall be released on his personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. In addition thereto, as nobody is there to stand surety for him, the appellant shall appear before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch once in every month, commencing from 18.11.2024 and thereafter, on such dates as set by the learned CJM, Poonch.

08.11.2024

01. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order of Central Administrative Tribunal ["The Tribunal'] dated 04.11.2024 in OA No. 61/1175/2024 titled 'Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.T. of J&K and Ors.', whereby the Tribunal has declined to grant ad-interim ex-parte stay, staying the communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua dated 15.10.2024 addressed to the Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau, J&K and Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu.

02. The application for interim relief is still pending and the same will come up for consideration before the Tribunal after the respondents appear and file their objections. Ordinarily, such ad-interim ex-parte orders are not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, having regard to the fact that the registration of FIR either by the Crime Branch or by the ACB in terms of communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua in OA will seriously prejudice the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the application for interim relief pending before the Tribunal by providing as under:-

08.11.2024

1. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.

2. The respondents submit that the petitioners' claim will be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of law relevant to the subject matter.

3. The petitioners' case is that they have been in possession of Government land and had applied for regularization and conferment of ownership under the repealed Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001. Ownership rights were initially conferred under this Act; however, by an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled 'Prof. S.K. Bhalla vs. State of J&K and others', PIL No. 19/2011, the Act was declared unconstitutional, resulting in the setting aside of ownership rights conferred under it.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioners have sought a direction upon respondent No. 3 to issue passports in their favour.

2. According to the petitioners, they had applied for passports after depositing the requisite fee. The application of the petitioner was allotted file number JM1066761201422 whereas, application of petitioner No. 2 was allotted file number JM1066765476422, whereafter, the said applications were forwarded to respondent No. 2 for verification. The applications were submitted by the petitioners on 11.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 but despite lapse of so many years, the respondents have not taken any action in the matter which has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court.

1 The petitioner has challenged order No. 214/NRHM of 2008 dated 10.03.2008 issued by respondent No.2 to the extent of engagement of respondent No.4 as Laboratory Assistant under NRHM. A direction has also been sought by the petitioner upon the official respondents seeking his engagement as Laboratory Assistant in CHC, Marwah.

2 Form a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that a Notification No.02 dated 16.10.2007 was issued by respondent No.2 whereby applications were invited for contractual appointments in various categories at different levels in the erstwhile District Doda. Six posts of Laboratory Assistants were also advertised vide the said notification which was published in a Newspaper on 17.10.2007. A corrigendum to the said notification, was issued vide No.NRHM/DDC/9954 dated 24.10.2007 whereby, besides increasing the number of posts advertised, it was provided that the advertisement of the posts should be read for Districts Doda, Kishtwar and Ramban instead of the erstwhile District Doda. It was further provided that the candidates should be the residents of the erstwhile J&K State and that preference will be given to local candidates. It was also provided that number of posts advertised for the position of Laboratory Assistant would be six (two each) and as per the corrigendum, number of such posts was increased to (12).

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Mohd Musharaf and Sofia Kouser, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Muslim rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from official respondents.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner claiming to be owner of land measuring 3 Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos. 210 (02-00) & 216 (01-

00) situated at Phalyana, Tehsil & District Rajouri, which on requisition has been under the occupation of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ever since the year 1961/62 and that the petitioner as owner of the land, had been receiving the settled rent for use of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, from the Collectorate.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the coming into effect of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 on 31.08.2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was organized into two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and in terms of Section 95(2) of the aforesaid Act, all the laws mentioned in the 5th Schedule applicable to the existing State of Jammu & Kashmir, immediately before the appointed day were made applicable in the manner provided in the 5th Schedule; that the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (State Act), was mentioned at serial no. 133 in TABLE-3 of 5th Schedule which contained the enactments which stood repealed correspondingly Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act) was made applicable. He further submits that the Central Act provides for a limitation of 17 years for holding the property on requisition and on expiry of 17 years from the date of occupying the property under occupation is either to be acquired in view of the law applicable or its possession is to be handed over to the owner.

08.11.2024

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail with effect from 07.11.2024 to 14.11.2024 so as to enable him to attend the wedding ceremonies of his niece, namely, Simerjeet Kour. The petitioner has placed on record the wedding invitation card.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case, titled "U. T of J&K vs Sarita Devi and others" pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba arising out of FIR No. 224/2021 of Police Station, Samba. The said FIR was initially registered for commission of offences under section 363 IPC, however, subsequently after the investigation, charge sheet for commission of offences under sections 363-A, 370, 120 and 34 IPC was filed against the petitioner.

(12.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Ankush Kumar and Isha Devi, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Hindu rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from respondent No.1.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) The appellant/State has challenged judgment dated 07.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") whereby, in a case arising out of FIR No. 116/2000 for offences under Sections 307/324/326/336/337 RPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e- Bahu, Jammu, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges.

2) The facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are that on 05.04.2000, PW Mohd Ashraf while undergoing treatment in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu for the injury received by him, made a statement before the police that on the aforesaid date at about 10.30 am when he reached his in-laws‟ house at Raika, he saw a number of people having gathered over there. He further stated that his father-in-law Siraj Din and respondent No.1/accused were having a long standing land dispute going on between them. On account of this, the respondents/accused along with 8/10 more persons had come on spot. It was further stated that the respondent No.1/accused Showkat Ali with an intention to commit murder of PW Mohd Ashraf launched a murderous attack on him with a Pathi on left side of his head which resulted in grievous injury to him. It was also alleged that the other respondents/accused were carrying clubs and axes in their hands, but they did not launch any attack upon him. When some people came on spot, the respondents/accused fled away from the spot and PW Mohd Ashraf fell down unconscious.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No. 101/2021 titled Satish Kumar Jain vs. Jugal Kishore & Anr.

2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 07.03.2020 and order on sentence dated 28.08.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

Name of Party Before District Forum Before State Commission Before National Commission ( Original Memo of Parties) Before National Commission ( Amended memo of parties) Public College Samana Complainant Respondent No.1 Petitioner Petitioner State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall OP No.1 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana OP No.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 State Bank of India, Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.3 Appellant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commission OP No.4 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.2   For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis  

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('State Commission') in FA No. 875/2014 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navsari, ('the District Forum') order dated 28.11.2013 wherein the District Forum had allowed the complaint by the Petitioner.

2.      As per report of the Registry there is a delay of 91 days in filing of the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking Condonation of delay, the same is condoned.

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

1.      The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the Order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh ("State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 83/2022, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is 31 days delay filing the Appeal. For reasons stated in IA/9118/2022, the delay is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

4.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's husband, Dilip Kumar Singh, obtained an insurance policy from OP insurance company on 28.06.2015. On 16.08.2015, while returning from Omkareshwar to Ujjain during Kavad Yatra, he met with an accident near Baigram on the Indore-Khandwa road and died. Following his death, the complainant submitted a claim to OP insurance company. However, the same was rejected on the ground that material facts about previous health conditions of the deceased were not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence, complainant filed C.C. No. 83/2022.

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.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenging the judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') and order on sentence dated 11.01.2024 (hereafter 'the impugned order on sentence'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 103/2017 (Old SC No. 39/2017) arising out of FIR No.732/2016, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.

2. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), Sections 354/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Section 18 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 511 of the IPC read with Section 376 of the IPC as well as Section 506 of the IPC.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

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. 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.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant regular first appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as 'CPC') seeking the following reliefs:

Signature Not Verified

RFA 9/2022 Page 1 of 60

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:12.11.2024

18:37:54

"(a) call, summon and peruse the records of the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Jay Thareja, Ld. ADJ-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.7447/2016 titled as "Apama Ashram Vs. Mohan Jha & Ors. ";

ANISH DAYAL, J.

"Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future"

- Justice V.R Krishna Iyer.

These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1485/2024 Page 1 of 58

Signing Date:12.11.2024

12:03:39

1. The petitioner seeks directions for setting aside the Minutes of Meeting of the Sentence Review Board ("SRB") held on 30th June 2023 rejecting the premature release of the petitioner and order dated 21 st November 2023 by which the Minutes of SRB were approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; ("LG"). Petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for premature release in FIR No.48/2001, PS Rajender Nagar for offences under Sections 302/186/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. Additionally, the petitioner prays that this Court frames guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 ("DPR").

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.

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.

‭ 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

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.

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. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.31-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145123 CRM-M-1189-2017 [2] proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused failed to pay any contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1, which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.32-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145104 CRM-M-614-2017 [2] 85 (e) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused have failed to submit the return of contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (e) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1 which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(e) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

8. That attested copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/1 already on record with the court, attested copy of Charge- sheet is Ex. PW-1/2 already on record with the court, copy of Fir is Ex. PW-1/3 already on record with the court, copy of MLC is Ex. PW-1/4 already on record with the court, copy of post mortem report is Ex. Pw-1/5 already on record with the court, copy of salary certificate is Ex. PW-1/6 already on record with the court, copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/7 already on record with the court, copy of site plan is Ex. PW-1/8 already on record with the court, copy of Insurance Certificate of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/9 already on record with the court, copy fo R/C details of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/10 already on record with the court, copy of Driving Licence Verification report of respondent/accused is Ex. PW-1/11 already on record with the court, copy of arrest memo is Ex. PW-1/12 already on record with the court, Copies of Aadhar Cards of legal heirs are Ex. Pw-1/13 (Colly.) already on record with the court. Copy of Funeral receipt issued from Shamshan Ghat is Ex. PW-1/14. Copy of Death Certificate of my deceased father is Ex. PW-1/15.

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 6

(i) "Please provide me with the action taken report on my complaint filed on 30th March 2023.

(ii) Please provide me with the present status of the above-mentioned complaint.

(iii) Please provide me with the norms for disposal of complaints, including the number of days within which complaints are expected to be disposed of, as per the citizen charter."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"As far as internal Vigilance Section of DoPT under this CPIO is concerned, it may be informed that your complaint dated 30.03.2023 was received electronically from CVC vide Commission's OM No. 10929/2023/vigilance-9 dated 11.04.2023 and the same was forwarded to PESB and Estt.II Division, DoPT, for further necessary action at their end, as the subject matter of your complaint was pertaining to them, vide this Department's OM No. C-13014/1/2021-Vig. dated 09.05.2023 (copy enclosed)."

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

"Please provide the specific information / clarification on Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. (updated as on 19.09.2022)

(i) Please inform who are 'such Government Servant' referred under Rule 63 (2)(a) above

(ii) Please clarify whether Rule 63(2)(a) is applicable to only to those Government servants refereed 63(1)(a) and (b)

(iii) Whether both the actual amount of leave salary (Rule 63(1)) and study leave conversion to regular leave (Rule 63 (2) (a) are applicable to all government servants referred in 63 (1) and 63 (2)

Heard.

2. At the instance of the petitioner No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/323/325/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

Page 1 of 4

3. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2016. Few days after their marriage, dissention arose in their family for which the petitioner No.2 lodged the F.I.R. being Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 for the above alleged offences.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Ranpur P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No.22 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 294/ 354/ 307/ 506/324/452/427/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Nayagarh.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 10.01.2015, the complainant reported at the P.S. that, on the same day, when he was working with labourers, the petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 removed his stumps and destroyed. When the labourers opposed the same, they left the place. Then in the same evening, while the complainant was coming from his house to pay his labourers, the above accused persons being armed with lathi, katari etc. entered into his house and abused him in obscene languages. The petitioner No.2 attacked him by means of katari to kill him. At that time, one Sunil Samantaray of his village obstructed the same and he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand. Thereafter, his sister-in-law, father and mother also tried to rescue him, but the accused persons pushed them and dragged the saree of his sister- in-law and kicked her. At that time, his brother Harmohan Nayak, Prafulla Nayak, Gagan Nayak, Sanjay Nayak and others reached at the spot and rescued them. All the accused persons threatened to kill them. Hence, the F.I.R.

Through: -

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The short grievance projected by the petitioner, who is present person in the Court, is that he has e-mailed various complaints to the respondents with respect to outcome of the investigation, pertaining to FIR No. 114/2022, however, the same has not evoked any response till date. The petitioner submits that he will be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to accord consideration and dispose of the said complaints as per law and report in this respect is furnished to him.

08.11.2024

1. This writ petition came out for its maiden hearing on 28th October, 2024, when this Court came across with a recital made in the writ petition that all the petitioners have already ventured with writ petitions before this Court and there are interim directions operating in those pending writ petitions in violation whereof order impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed.

2. Accordingly, this Court came to direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to place on record copies of the writ petitions related to the writ petitioners herein which are said to be pending before this Court.

3. In order to get out of the rigor of the order dated 28th October, 2024, the petitioners are stated to have even ventured in letters patent appeal which came to be dismissed as withdrawn and this is how today the learned counsel for the petitioners is back to square one with the direction still operating for the petitioners to produce all the writ petitions related to them and pending before this Court.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the recommendations made by the State Level Evaluation Committee (SLEC) in its 4th meeting held on 09.10.2024, whereby the petitioner's technical bid was marked as "non-responsive." This decision was based solely on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria specified under Clause 2.2.2.5(iv), "...iv. In case of project executed by applicant under category 3 and 4 as a member of Joint Venture, the project cost should be restricted to the share of the applicant in the joint venture for determining eligibility as per provision under Clause 2.2.2.2. In case statutory auditor certifies that the work of other member(s) is also executed by the applicant, then the total share executed by applicant can be considered for determining eligibility as per provision under clause 2.2.2.2"

Through: -

None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 This is an application filed by the petitioners to place on record the documents.

For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

08.11.2024

1. In terms of an order dated 31.10.2024, this Court came to direct the personal appearance of Ms. Sheetal Nanda, Commissioner/Secretary to Government Social Welfare Department, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for today's hearing both in the writ petition as well as in the contempt petition for the purpose of eliciting from the Commissioner/Secretary, Social Welfare Department some informative inputs as to wherefrom the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, pursuant to which in terms of the Government Order No. 50/SW of 2014 the contractual appointments of the petitioners came to take place is reckoned to be closed as from the reading of the entire reply from the respondents, and, this Court has not come across with any order/decision, express or implied, that the posts created in terms of Government Order No. 50/SW of 2014 for the purpose of running the establishment are to be wound up in terms of a later government order/decision.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner being a consolidated worker engaged by the Municipal Committee, Handwara came to be terminated/disengaged from service with immediate effect in terms of impugned order No. MC/Hand/Estt/2022-23/32-36 dated 06.04.2023 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Handwara. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

2. In terms of an order dated 12.04.2023, this Court came to keep on hold the operation of the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, with a further interim direction unto the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a consolidated worker in terms of his original engagement order dated 30.12.2006.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The subject matter of this petition falls within the definition of 'service matters' as contained in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has become applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, after coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 Vide common Judgment dated 26.05.2022, passed by this Court in SWP No. 1002/2018 titled Tasleema Jan Vs. State and Ors., and SWP No. 876/2015, titled Roomi Akhter Vs. State and Ors., following directions were passed against the resondents.

"i) The respondents shall consider the claim of both the candidates, Roomi Akhter and Tasleema Jan, in respect of their engagement as Angan Wari Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. Both the petitioners shall be associated with the consideration process by allowing them to put forward their stand effectively.

11.11.2024 Ms. Rasheeda Shaheen, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2-Showkat Ali Para has expired and is now representing the respondent No. 1 & 3.

Let requisite application along with death certificate for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Showkat Ali Para be submitted by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of contesting the case of the petitioners.

In the meantime, an application CM 733/2024 has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 3 with respondent No. 2 being no more, as such, cannot be referred for the purpose of being an applicant seeking release of the awarded amount as awarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 195-JKPCC of 2024 dated 16.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.