Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Mr. Bhattacharjee files another affidavit of service afresh. Let it be kept with the record. None appears on behalf of the accused/opposite party.
(2.) The order dated 6.1.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in Case No. C/882/96 has been brought in revision before this Court. During the stage of examination of the petitioner, the question of the authority given by the Managing Director of the Company seems to have been the bone of contention in the impugned order. As the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the same given in favour of the petitioner by the Managing Director as the Memorandum of Association of the complainant company could not be produced while the document in question was sought to be exhibited.
(3.) It is absolutely a frivolous matter which could detain the proceeding of a trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which is kept pending since 1996. The said question with regard to the production of the Memorandum of Association does not effect the tenor of the deposition of P.W. 1 as on the basis of his complaint the cognizance was taken, process was issued and the accused has been arrayed pursuant thereof and the trial had begun. The point which haunted the mind of the learned Magistrate does not impress the Court. The impugned order to that extent is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to allow the complainant to exhibit the said document and endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible.;