SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) The petitioners herein challenged the legal pregnability of the complaint case being case No. C-6705 of 2013 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act by which a proceeding has been initiated against them. Since common question of fact and law are involved, both the revisional applications are taken up at a time.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the learned trial court has misjudged the legal position that before issuing any process against him, learned Magistrate ought to have made an enquiry under Section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C. (since amended).
(3.) Before I delve into the merit of the application, I deem it fit to cull-out the seminal facts from the record leading to the passing of the impugned order. The petition of complaint speaks that the petitioner is one of the directors and is associated with the day to day affairs of the company. The present petitioner had issued cheque in his official capacity and when that was presented before the bank concerned for encashment that was dishonoured. After complying with the usual legal formalities, the opposite party had filed an application under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who after taking cognizance, transferred the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court for enquiry and disposal according to law. The transferee court has examined the complainant on S/A under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. He held that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case against the accused under Section 138/141 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, he issued process which is the subject matter of the challenge in this revisional application.;