- (1.) Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This revisional application has been directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/ 631/03 under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 25.2.2008 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rejected the petition of the petitioners praying for allowing their learned Advocate D. Chanda to answer the questions under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on their behalf.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that sometime in 2003, the opposite party No. 2 moved a petition of complaint bearing No. C/631/03 against the present petitioners and others alleging thereby the commission of offence punishable under sections 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The allegations made in the said complaint in short are that in course of its commercial transactions towards discharge of liabilities arising out of regular course of business, the company of the petitioners, namely, National Plywood Industries Ltd. issued six post-dated cheques for Rs. 1,72,246/- which being presented for clearance were returned dishonoured followed by service of demand notice which was not complied with by the petitioners and thereby they embraced the penal mischief of the said enactment. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged of and issued process in the said complaint case. The petitioners as accused persons entered appearance and were enlarged on bail. Then the petitioners as accused persons filed an application praying themselves to be represented by their learned Advocate under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and they were permitted to be represented by their learned Counsel. Thereafter learned Metropolitan Magistrate examined the petitioners-accused persons under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through their learned Counsel representing them and trial was going on. Thereafter, date was fixed on 12.12.2007 for examination of the petitioners/accused persons under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But by order dated 25.2.2008 the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners/accused persons and directed their personal appearance for examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, the petitioners have filed this revisional application under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3.) The opposite party/State of West Bengal and the opposite party No. 2 are contesting, but neither of the opposite parties has filed any affidavit in opposition. The point to be considered in this matter is whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was legal, correct and justified in passing the impugned order or not.;