The court's decision emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting legal provisions and ensuring jurisdictional compliance in granting bail.

ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed being aggrieved of order dated 2.5.2019 passed in R.C.T No.882/2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur whereby after registering a case under the provisions of Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C"), the applicant was granted benefit of bail vide order dated 20.12.2018. Thereafter, on 2.5.2019, an application was filed on behalf of the present applicant under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C when complainant had filed an application seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the case is registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the I.P.C whereas by mistake the applicant was given benefit of bail under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I.Act") while infact the Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the applicant for an offence under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the I.P.C, therefore, the matter may be committed to the Court of Sessions.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. Once bail was granted to him then that cannot be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order dated 2.5.2019 cancelling the bail & issuing arrest warrant against the applicant be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant in his turn submits that the Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur has committed a mistake in cancelling the bail order and, therefore, he has no objection if an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is allowed and the arrest warrant issued against the applicant is recalled as in a case under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the Trial Court has wrongly registered a complaint under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the I.P.C.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that vide order dated 9.10.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur noted a fact that the present applicant instead of issuing cheque from his own account had issued a cheque from the cheque book of his father. The Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur had categorically noted a fact that as per the provisions contained in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for constituting an offence, it is necessary that cheque is given by a person from his own account, therefore, the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I.Act are not attracted. Thus, the cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the I.P.C was taken and accordingly the case was registered after taking cognizance.

5. It is true that vide order dated 20.12.2018 treating it to be a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, bail was granted to the applicant but there is no denial of the fact that the Trial Court had taken cognizance under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the I.P.C and not under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, therefore, that clerical error when was brought to the notice of the Court on 2.5.2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur was justified in recalling the bail bonds & issuing arrest warrant. As far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, copy of the application was given to learned counsel for the applicant and, therefore, the order was passed on 2.5.2019.

6. In the case of Jugesh Sehgal versus Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC 683, the Supreme Court has held that one of the requisite ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the cheque issued should be from the bank account held in the name of the applicant. In the said case, since the cheque was not issued from the bank account held in the name of the applicant, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable