- (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 24.02.2014 passed in Complaint Case no.31 of 2009 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has cancelled the bail of the petitioner and has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case was instituted by the O.P.-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act(for short 'N.I.Act') and under Section 420 IPC on 08.01.2009 and on examination of the witnesses, cognizance was taken under Section 138 N.I.Act by order dated 16.05.2009. That on summon the petitioner-accused appeared on 15.12.2010 and he was admitted to bail and the substance of accusation was explained on 19.02.2011 whereafter the case was fixed for evidence. That it would be evident from the order-sheet that from 15.05.2011 to 29.01.2014 the petitioner was present and was also represented on several dates. That despite numerable opportunities being given to the O..-complainant he did not adduce any evidence and by order dated 29.01.2014, the evidence was closed. That on 05.02.2014 the petitioner/accused appeared before the court and an application was filed under section 311 IPC by O.P./complainant. That on the next date, i.e., on 24.02.2014, the trial court cancelled the bail of the petitioner observing that the petitioner had not appeared for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is argued by the learned counsel that Clause (2) and (3) of Section 143 of N.I.Act prescribes that the proceeding under the N.I.Act is summary in nature and endeavor should be made by the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial preferably within six months from the date of the institution of the complaint. It is argued that it would be evident from the order-sheets that the petitioner had diligently prosecuted the case for nearly four years. That it was due to the fault of the complainant that the case had lingered for such a long time, as several opportunities were granted to the complainant to adduce evidence and finally by order dated 29.01.2014 the evidence was closed. That the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that his counsel would be prosecuting the case or would inform him regarding the status of the case but since the counsel had met with an accident as such he could not attend the court between January, 2014 to April, 2014, accordingly necessary steps could not be taken by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. That the trial court, without noticing or without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has cancelled the bail of the petitioner which is in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also argued that since it was a case of no evidence, hence the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not required to be recorded and the learned Trial Court should have disposed of the case on the basis that it was a case of no evidence. It is submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner rather he could not appear before the court due to non-communication of the order by the counsel. It is submitted that the petitioner undertakes to be present before the court, henceforth, as and when directed by the trial court till the conclusion of the proceedings. On the above grounds it is urged that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is fit to be quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. has argued that it would be evident from the order dated 05.02.2014 that the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the petitioner/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and a direction was given to the petitioner to be physically present but he did not appear on the next date, i.e., on 24.02.2014, hence, the court below has rightly passed the order cancelling the bail of the petitioner and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.;