- (1.) ORDER dated 21 st of January 2009 passed by the learned chief Judge, City Sessions Court Calcutta in connection with Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2008 sotting aside the order dated 19th of November, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, calcutta in connection with C-5024 of 2000 is under challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. at the instance of the petitioners who are accused before the learned Magistrate in case no. C-5024 of 2000 under Section 138/141 of the N. I. Act.
(2.) AS per postman's report notice issued upon the O. P. No. 2 in the address as 52/3 ballygunj Circular Road, Calcutta -19 remains 'not claimed'. Since the impugned order has not been challenged by the complainant/o. P. No. 3 its presence so far as this revisional application is concerned is not necessary. It is the O. P. No. 2 who challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court and it is the order of the learned chief Judge, City Sessions Court in relation to the O. P. No. 2 which is the subject matter of challenge in this application.
(3.) O. P. No. 3 as complainant filed the complaint being No. C-5024 of 2000 under section 138/141 of the N. I. Act before the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioners and upon appearance of the petitioners trial commenced. By order dated 18th June, 2007 the learned Magistrate closed the cross-examination of the prosecution witness No. 1 (complainant) and then fixed a date for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order moved an application before this Court being CRR No. 3280 of 2007 and the Court set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed expeditious disposal of the trial. After cross-examination of the prosecution witness the learned Magistrate examined the petitioners under Section 313 cr. P. C. on 23rd of March, 2008 and then adjourned the trial to 6th of June, 2008 for examination of the defence witness. On the prayer of the petitioner summons were issued upon the O. P. No. 2 for his examination as a defence witness. There was no service return of the said O. P. No. 2 and but the learned Magistrate drawing presumption under Section 114 (f) of the Evidence act directed issuance of bailable warrant of arrest upon the said O. P. No. 2 who was at the material time allegedly a Director of the complainant/o. P. No. 3. The O. P. No. 2 filed an application on 15th of September, 2008 before the learned Magistrate against the order of issuance of bailable warrant of arrest. The learned Magistrate by order dated 19th of November, 2008 turned down the objection and reaffirmed his earlier order and fixed 17th of January, 2009 for execution and report. Then the O. P. No. 2 filed a revisional application before the learned chief Judge, City Sessions Court which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2008. In the said revisional application the o. P. No. 2 claimed himself to be a non-resident Indian, as well as a Member of Parliament. However, the learned Chief Judge, city Sessions Court while setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate is alleged to have travelled much beyond the subject matter of revision and closed the right of the petitioners to examine the O. P. No. 2 which was totally unjustified.;