The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly focusing on Section 138 and Section 139, and the exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning witnesses and permitting the production of documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The applicant-accused in Criminal Complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act has preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 22.10.2021, passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Presiding Officer of Additional Court No. 03, Gautam Budh Nagar, by which he allowed the complainant’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and permitted the production of three documents on record and summoned the Post Office’s Clerk and Advocate Sri Braj Bhushan Pal for deposition.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that M/s. Tanya Buildcon (India), Private Limited, has filed a complaint under Sections 138 & 141 N.I. Act, against M/s. Gujrat Isotop Pvt. Ltd. and its Director/M.D. Miss. Priti Pandya before the C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar, bearing No. 16712 of 2010, which was contested by the opposite parties.

4. In this complaint case, evidence were recorded and documents were already produced by the complainant. Relevant parts of the order-sheets of the lower court has been produced by the applicant, which discloses that on 14.04.2021, the case was fixed for argument and the Court below heard the oral argument and also directed to produce the written argument.

5. The order-sheet dated 22.09.2021 discloses that the counsel for the accused raised some preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint that the alleged legal notice in not signed by the concerned advocate and that no receipt regarding authorization for filing the complaint by the Director Sri Deepak Agrawal has been produced. He also argued that Sri Deepak Agrawal has produced his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on affidavit, which is not duly verified.

6. In view of these initial objections of the opposition, the court fixed a date for their disposal. Thereafter an Application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon the Official of the Postal Department and the aforesaid counsel, who had sent the notice. Thereafter the order in question was passed after taking up the objections of the opposition and hearing the parties.

7. The applicant has taken mainly this ground to quash the impugned order that the legal notice filed with the affidavit dated 09.08.2010 was not signed by the advocate, who had dispatched the same to the applicant and that the Postal Receipt was invisible to ascertain the post office and year. The resolution/memorandum authorizing Mr. Deepak Agrawal for filing the complaint was not filed as primary document with the complaint. According to him the lower court perused the record and found that the list of documents does not contain the receipt of dispatch of legal notice and resolution of the Company and the legal notice does not contain the signature of the advocate. According to the applicant thus by accepting the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. the court has provided an opportunity to fill up the lacuna to the complainant, hence the present application.

8. At the very outset it would be proper to state something about the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

9. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was amended with effect from 01.04.1989 and the maximum term of punishment of one year has been enhanced up to two years and the period of notice of dishonor of cheque has been reduced from 30 days to a period of 15 days with effect from 06th February, 2003. The scheme of N.I. Act primarily to provide an additional criminal remedy over and above the civil remedy available under the Act.

10. Section 138 of the N.I. Act creates a new offence when a cheque is returned by the Bank unpaid. Section 139 casts a rebuttable presumption that a holder of the cheque has received, the same towards discharge of liability. The Section 140 precludes the drawer from the pleadings with that he had no reason to believe that the cheque would be dishonoured. As per Section 142, the offence has bee