Amar Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and no counter affidavit has been filed in spite of availing opportunity.
(2.) This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 24.7.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2001 (Shoab Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others) by which the summoning order passed by the Magistrate under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was set aside.
(3.) In short compass the facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 issued a cheque of Rs. 15 lacs to the revisionist against the outstanding dues with an assurance that the aforesaid cheque will be encashed on presentation during its validity period but the same was returned back with the remark of insufficient fund. A statutory notice under section 138(b) N.I. Act was given to the respondent no. 2 on 06.11.2000 which was returned back to the revisionist on 15.11.2000. Thereafter the revisionist filed a complaint within a month from the date of cause of action under section 142 of N.I. Act on 07.12.2000. The complainant-revisionist is in fact a holder in due course and as such is authorized to bring forth a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act. The respondent no. 2 is the proprietor of the crusher. Revisionist being partner of the registered firm and was in-charge and responsible to conduct the business of the firm at the time of issuing a cheque. The Trial Court after perusing the complaint and statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. and documentary evidence filed in support of the complaint, passed the summoning order under section 138 of N.I. Act. Against which the respondent no. 2 filed a revision which was allowed and summoning order was set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order of Sessions Court, this revision was filed.;