AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate.
In this case admittedly the applicants have got themselves bailed out.
Now this application has been filed for quashing the further proceedings against the applicants in Case No. 1639 of 2007, u/s 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad.
Placing reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs. Yashpal Singh and Another, Sadanandan Bhadran Vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, and M/s. Sil Import, USA Vs. M/s. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in this case two notices were issued, first on 31.7.2007 and the second on 15.9.2007. However, I find that in the complaint there is no mention of the first notice. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the cause of action arises u/s 138 read with 142 (b) within 15 days of the receipt of the first notice.
However, in the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the applicants there was an admitted position that two notices were served, but this matter requires to be probed before the trial court as the complaint is silent about the first notice.
I think, it would be proper to permit the applicants to raise their objections at the stage of framing of charges before the trial court.
As the applicants have already secured bail, they are permitted to appear through counsel and raise their objections to the initiation of trial proceedings against them at the stage of framing of charges.
This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges provided the applicants give an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that (a) their counsel will remain present on their behalf and represent them on each date ; (b) they will not raise any objection as to their being the actual person who is facing trial ; (c) they do not object to the evidence being recorded in their absence ; (d) they undertake to be present before the Court whenever called upon to do so at any stage.
These undertakings are being taken in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Others,
With these observations this application is disposed of.