ORDER: The petitioner is one of the accused in the case. His application for discharge was rejected. Hence, this revision has been filed.

2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the date of the cheque was only 31.12.1998, the petitioner retired from partnership even earlier to that, In support of his contention, he presented a Gazette notification which says that “B.Shambu Kumar retired from the partnership of Salem Steels Limited, with effect from 30.9.1998.”

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this Gazette notification has to be proved before the trial Court and then only the petitioner can get the benefit of the Gazette notification. In support of his contention, he relies on the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bharat Kumar Modi v. Pennar Peterson Securities Limited, 2000 Crl.L.C. 88, wherein it was held that Form No.32 produced by the accused and the other documents kept at the Registrar of Companies under the Act though admissible in evidence, ought to be proved in trial. Insofar as the Gazette notification is concerned, they are public documents and they can be taken judicial notice of at any time by the Courts concerned. The veracity of the Gazette notification has not been disputed. Once it has been notified in the official Gazette that the petitioner ceased to be a partner with effect from 30.9.1998, it has to be taken note of by this Court also. Admittedly, the issuance of the cheque were dated 31.12.1998. At least three months prior to to the issuance of the cheque, the petitioner has retired from the partnership and the Gazettenotification need not require any further proof. Therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioner to go and face the trial.

4. Therefore, the petition stands allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the petitioner is hereby discharged from the case. Crl.M.P.Nos.1718 and 1719 of 2001 closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document