- (1.) CASE Nos. CRR 1303 of 2009, CRR 1304 of 2009, CRR 1305 of 2009, crr 1306 of 2009 and CRR 1307 of 2009 are being taken up together as the subject matter is one and the same and the accused person is common to all the cases.
(2.) NOTICE has been returned with the remark "not claimed" and "refused". Accordingly, presumption of service is drawn.
(3.) THE complainant filed five cases against the opposite party. Nirmal khandelwal, Proprietor of Tirupati Blessing co. alleging offences under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The amounts involved in cheques bounced are Rs. 7,39,734, rs. 1,57,248, Rs. 21,78,829, Rs. 2,91,897 and rs. 27,06,886 respectively. All the cases are now pending before the learned Metropolitan magistrate case No. C-18808/07, c-18811/07; C-18810/07, C-18809/07 and c-20445/07 respectively. The accused did not appear before the learned Magistrate after issuance of summons and made applications in all the cases under Section 205 of Cr. P. C. praying for dispensing with personal appearance of the accused. The learned Metropolitan magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta by his order dated 3rd June, 2008 observed as follows: "it appears from the petition that the accused person is residing at 17, Lower range, Kolkata and he is running business at a place 50 Chowringhee Road, kolkata which one is in Kolkata and very near to this court. The accused does not reside or run business far away from Kolkata or far away from this court. Therefore, it is difficult for the accused to appear before this court for his first appearance, I think that the accused is reluctant to appear personally first time denying general rule of law on the flimsy grounds. In my opinion, it is not a fit case, where personal appearance may be exempted without first appearance in court. ";