(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 17.04.2020.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 Shivalee SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dasti notice is also permitted.

List on 23.03.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 11.05.2020.

Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date before the Bench, respondent No. 5 shall indicate to the petitioner the bid which has been received by respondent No. 5 in respect to the e- auction Notice No. DGM/DMO/Spn/310-18 dated 07.02.2020. It is further provided that in case the petitioner has been found to be eligible in all respects and has given the bid higher then respondent No. 4, in that event, respondents shall not proceed further in the matter.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 Shivalee I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List on 01.06.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List on 01.06.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

By virtue of order dated 29th January, 2020, it was made clear that if the matter was not argued on next date of hearing the interim directions issued would stand vacated.

Today yet again Mr. Haqani is not present and a request is made for adjournment.

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

--2--

Request as made is rejected. The interim direction in all the three cases i.e. SWP No.2002/20132, SWP No.844/2012 and SWP No.2151/2011 are vacated.

List again on 27th May, 2020.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

" It is therefore, humbly prayed that a direction may kindly be given to the In Charge Sub District Jail, Kupwara to release the petitioners on bail after perusal of the report certified copy of which is placed on record and C. D file is called and the objections are called from the concerned prosecution agency and the arguments of both sides are heard in this behalf and till the instant bail application is finally decided the petitioners are making out a prima facie case for their release on interim bail and the accused may kindly be granted interim bail till the petition is finally decided as the same has been rules by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same prayer is made before this Hon'ble Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the petitioner approached initially the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, for registration of case against the respondent No. 6, by filing application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. PC, but even on the directions of the concerned Magistrate, the Crime Branch has not acted upon the directions. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondent Director School Education, and brought into his notice the fraudulent approach adopted by the respondent No. 6 in fabricating the documents for excluding the role of petitioner as Chairman of the Holy Mission School, Narbal, Budgam, but no action is taken. It is submitted that on failure of the official respondents to take action in tune with the statutory provisions, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court for seeking the relief as prayed for.

"6. Having said so, it would be open to the authorities concerned to consider the representation, if any, that is pending before them. However, no mandamus can be issued by this Court for enforcement of the clauses contained in the Transfer Policy for the purpose of enforcement.

02. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the order bearing endorsement No. GMS/B/20-1198 dated 12.03.2020, whereby, petitioner has, again, been transferred with immediate effect.

03. Since transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the service of an employee can be utilized properly in the larger public interest. An employee holding transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.

"a). A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents more particularly respondent No. 1, to consider and decide the application of petitioner forwarded by respondent No. 2 Director School Education, Kashmir, vide communication No. DSEK/Estt- III/B-Trs/06/2019/Kup/5092 dated 27.08.2019.

b) A writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for inter-District transfer in light of the policy in vogue and also in light of the Medical Board recommendations."

03. Since transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the service of an employee can be utilized properly in the larger public interest. An employee holding transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.

2. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention on the following grounds:

"a) that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenu was already in custody;

b) that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;

SWP No. 2648/2018;

CCP(S) No. 402/2019 regarding correct allotment of the GP Fund Computer Code numbers is pending before the respondents and has not been concluded, therefore, the respondents could not have proceeded to withhold the salary of the petitioners since the month of December, 2017, that too, without issuing any formal order to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners are continuing to discharge their duties uninterruptedly at their respective places of posting, however, their salary is not being released without there being any rhyme or reason. The petitioners claim that despite they having approached the respondents repeatedly, their salary was not released constraining them to approach this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No.2648/2018, wherein they prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in their favour:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment

1. Impugned in this Heabus Corpus petition with a prayer for quashment thereof is the detention order no. 141/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 30.03.2019, purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate Baramulla, whereunder detenu namely Firdous Ahmad Wani s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Wani R/o Mohalla Bazar Seri Warpora, Pattan District Baramulla, is under detention.

2. Grounds pleaded in support of prayer are that after having been quashed the earlier detention order no. 66/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 20th August 2018, the detenu was again detained in terms of the detention order impugned in this petition on the so called "dossier" placed before respondent no.2, on the same and similar grounds. It is submitted that his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State and national law, accordingly while in police custody he was ordered to be detained in preventive custody vide impugned detention order passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla. The earlier detention order was challenged in H.C. Petition No. 239/2018 which was allowed vide judgment dated 11th Dec. 2018, but instead of releasing him from custody, the detaining authority again passed the detention order impugned in the instant petition. During arguments the learned counsel has further elucidated the contents of petition with reference to annexures placed on record, and contended that neither the detention in question was legal nor were grounds HCP no155/2019 1|Page 2 thereof duly communicated to the detenu even though quite vague and unfounded.

In terms of order passed on 13th March, 2020, the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar, has submitted his own affidavit and those of his accompanying staff namely Gulzar Ahmad Shah (Nazir), Irfan Ahmad Ganai, (Driver); Ali Khan (S.I), Ghulam Mohammad (SgCT), Tariq Ahmad (Constable), Mohammad Younis (SgCT). The affidavits so filed are taken on record. Copy of the affidavits along with the report of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar, be furnished to the respondent for her response to be filed by or before the next date of hearing with copy in advance to Mr. N. H. Shah, learned Sr. AAG.

List on 15th April, 2020.

CM NO. 1853/2020 By this application, the applicant/ respondent is praying for providing her the copy of the application and other relevant documents for enabling her to file reply.

Permission is granted and the objections as also the report submitted by Mr T. M. Shamsi, ASGI, is taken on record.

Perusal of the communication supra reveals that the detenue, on reference to Medical Superintendent of AIIMS Hospital on 3rd March, 2020, for medical examination, has been informed about constitution of Medical Board in terms of letter No. M.22- 9/Medical Board/ 2020-ESTT (H) dated 13.03.2020. The Medical Superintendent has, however, reported that at present the general condition and vitals of the inmate are stable and satisfactory. The communication further reveals that the detenue will be sent to the Medical Board as and when called by it.

Let Mr B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, keep the detention records available on the next date of hearing.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment Through the instant petition, petitioner father of detenu seeks quashment of detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/81/2019 dated 16.08.2019, passed by District Magistrate Srinagar, whereby the detenu namely Tufail Ahmad Zaldar S/o Mohammad Shafi Zaldar R/o Ranger Stop Zaldar Mohalla, Saidakadal, Srinagar, is under detention.

2. In the dossier it is alleged that the detenu is involved in anti- national activities, disturbing the public tranquility and peace in the area of Saidakadal and its adjacent areas. It is submitted that the detenu was found indulging in disturvbing the maintenance of public order by way of resorting to stone pelting. It is submitted that the detenu is a constant threat to the security of the State. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested in cases FIR no. 70/2019 u/s 307, 147 RPC and FIR 47/2019 u/s 147, 148, 336 RPC registered at Police Station Nigeen. Therefore, on these allegations he was slapped under Public Safety Act, 1978.

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, A.P.P.

---------

04/Dated: 06/05/2020 Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy and learned counsel for the State Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he may be permitted to make necessary correction in application regarding the provision of law.

Permission is granted.

Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to make necessary correction within 30 days after the lock down period is over as the country is passing through pandemic disease (COVID-

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated: 06/05/2020

The appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per Act, prayer for bail of the accused is to be considered under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in appeal under Section 14A of the Act.

From perusal of record, it appears that earlier this appellant has moved before this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 917 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Coordinate Bench of this Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) on 16.10.2019. Subsequently, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, which is instituted as Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 147 of 2020 on the ground that the appellant is in custody since his surrender on 20.06.2019 and co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the police during investigation of the case.

2. Kanthi Choudhary ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.

06/06.05.2020 The present revision petition is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (opposite party no.1).

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

2. Chitranjan Kumar Singh ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

06/06.05.2020 The present revision petition is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (opposite party no.1).

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the court fee as soon as the judicial work in the High Court gets normal after end of the lockdown prevailing due to Corona (Covid-19) pandemic.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 17.04.2020 issued by the District Certificate Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no.5) whereby the Director of the petitioner-company has been directed to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison for not depositing the certificate amount. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the letter as contained in memo no. 667 dated 16.04.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no. 3) directing the respondent no. 5 to immediately issue warrant of arrest against the Director of the petitioner-company and to take steps for attachment of its property. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the final order if any passed under Section 10 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (in short "the Act, 1914") and to restrain the respondent authorities from taking any precipitate action against the petitioner including suspension of its agreement for milling of rice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument has also prayed for an interim protection from any action to be taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17.04.2020.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Umesh Choudhary has been moved by Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will remove the defects when the physical appearance in the High Court will start.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Lalu Kumar Rana @ Lalu Rana has been moved by Mr. Rahul Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

In view of the allegations, let the case diary and antecedent report of the petitioner be called for from the court concerned.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Jatin Kumar Manjhi @ Jatin Manjhi has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

---------

For the Petitioners : Ms. Shamma Parveen, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

---------

th 02/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 370/ 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is present.

3. Learned A.P.P., submits that case diary is required to assist this Court in the matter, hence prays for time to procure the case diary.

4. Heard. On prayer of learned A.P.P, office to list this case on 08.06.2020.

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

02/Dated: 07th May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 323, 354(A), 354(B), 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.PP and on perusal of the deposition of the victim, i.e., P.W. - 1, at Annexure - 2, it appears that during the trial, the victim has deposed that accused Bajrang along with three other accused had caught hold of her and she has identified Bajranj but has not identified the petitioners. In cross- examination she has categorically stated that the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence.

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

---------

th 05/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioner, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioner/ appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2017.

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall file the requisites of notice under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, to be served upon O.P. No.02, at the earliest.

2. On prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, office to list this case on 09.06.2020.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

2. Manoj Mahato @ Manoj Kr. Mahato

3. Mantu Mahato @ Mantu Lal Mahato

4. Kirtichand Mahato @ Kiriti Bhushan Mahato

5. Nem Chand Mahato

6. Gopal Mahato --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and his alias name in the body of the petition tallies with his name in the complaint petition, Aadhar Card, impugned order and also in the body of vakalatnama except where petitioner has inscribed his signature. Therefore, the same may be ignored.

In view of the submission made, let the instant defect be ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in present circumstances, undertakes to remove the remaining defect no. 9(ii) and (iii) regarding filing of certain pages within a week. Defect no. 9(v) is ignored as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, last page of the restoration application is not of much relevance. Defect no. 9 (iv) is also ignored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) which relates to page no. 19 of the petition may be ignored as page is otherwise legible and complete except the last line which is not of much significance. Accordingly, defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) is ignored. So far defect no. 9(iii) is concerned which relates to non-filing of duly certified typed copy of handwritten pages at Annexure-2 & 3, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also ignored.

2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.P. Case No. 96/2019 for the offences registered under sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Miss Babita Mittal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Md. Shamim @ Sotti in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 499 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4917 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 25(1)(A)(B)(C) of the Arms Act, has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Gulli Mandal @ Gurudeo Mandal in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 08 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, has been moved by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Karmu Mahato @ Karmu Mahto --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P through Video Conferencing.

2. Amit Kumar Paswan @ Amit Kumar --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birendra Burman, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through Video Conferencing.

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

---------

th 04/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioners, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioners/ appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, II, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.361 of 2016.

2. Relevant facts are that plaintiff has filed suit for recovery against the defendant no.1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing of coating powder and trading of decorative and industrial paints and thinner since 1994. The defendant is a limited company and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the manufacturing of electrical panels. The defendant through its directors/ officials approached the plaintiff for purchase of the coating powder and industrial paints and thinner and at the time of commencement of the business, the terms of business, as specifically printed on or contained in the plaintiff's invoices were agreed by the defendant and thereafter business dealings and transactions started between the parites hereto in 2004 and since 15.04.2004 they have been maintaining a running account.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-98/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-96/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-94/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-92/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-90/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-97/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-95/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-86/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-88/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed.

CR No.-84/2020 Page No.-1 of 3

3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-93/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.