2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 28.1.2020 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/5912/2020 ORDER under Sections 379(A)(3) of the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 11.12.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of solitary offence under Sections 66-1B, 65-AE, 98(2) and 116-B of the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:07 IST 2020 C/SCA/52/2020 ORDER within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

[2] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State by video conferencing.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 11216004200101 of 2020 registered with Dhaboda Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant appearing by video conferencing submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:24:44 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6597/2020 ORDER from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will hold a review meeting with CEOs of public sector banks (PSBs) on Monday to discuss various issues, including credit offtake, as part of efforts to prop up the economy hit by the COVID-19 crisis. The meeting, to be held via video-conferencing, will also take stock of interest rate transmission to borrowers by banks and progress on moratorium on loan repayments, sources said. The RBI had on March 27 slashed the benchmark interest rate by a massive 75 basis points and also announced a three-month moratorium to be given by banks to provide relief to borrowers whose income has been hit due to the lockdown. Earlier this month, RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das held a meeting with heads of both public and private sector banks to take stock of the economic situation

---------

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.