- (1.) The challenge in the revision is to the order dated passed by the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge ,FTC No-VIII Bihcar Bawan, Calcutta in C.R. 27 of 2009 whereby the Judgment & order of conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C-146 of 2000 was set aside. This findings has been challenged , mainly , on twofold ground (a) that the :Ld. 1 st. revisional court erred in coming to a conclusion that that examination of the Power of attorney holder alone is not enough and (b) that the Ld. Court erred in holding that the cognizance of offence taken by the Magistrate on a complaint which was barred by limitation.
(2.) A short reference to the factual aspect giving rise to the grievance to the petitioner is set out below for better appreciation of the entire matter.
(3.) The petitioner A.K.Maheswary lodged one petition of complaint through his Power of attorney holder Ram Chandra Jaju against the O.P.s Modern Engineering Works and Rajranglal Sarda under section 138 of N.I.act alleging therein that the respondent being the proprietor of Modern Engineering Works had taken loan from him and in discharge of such liability, he had drawn a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000 in the name of the complainant. The cheque was dishonored owing to insufficiency of fund . The complainant issued a demand notice by registered post on 09.9.1999. The complainant did not receive any postal report regarding service of the notice on the respondent till 04.11.1999. Therefore, he took up the matter with the postal authorities and on17.01.2000 was informed by the G.P.O. that the demand notice was served on the respondent on15.09.1999.Being so informed, he lodged the case within the period of one month. The Ld. Trial court found all the essential ingredients of offence under section 138 N.I.act were established .Therefore , conviction of the respondent was recorded. The respondent challenged that decision in a revision & the Ist revisional court was pleased to set aside the decision of the Ld. Trial court on the grounds, (a) that the prosecution was barred by law and (b) that the complainant ought to have been examined by the court. The complainant being dissatisfied with that order passed by the revisional court has come up with this application challenging the legality , validity & propriety of the order on the grounds already stated.;