1HGHC08RT CTT CaMIATTI8Q*M»AT BILAOniR QtM.P.So. 412/20W Petttionw Maawh Kwnar Kasbyq^, S/o Sh^m Lat Kashyap, Aged AcMit ^ yearSi R/o Ramaaujgaaj, P.S. aad TateU Ramaaujgaaj, Distt. Si.tqtuja(e.G.}. Accuaed YEJRSUS ResBondent CS&IB.ohdlMUlt ti ia? ;1 1.1 w. 11,.<! ' ShateBghaa Gupta S/o Late Shri Saiayu Prasad Oupta, aged 45 y^uss pcxiupation but psoprietw Kfo Darhpara, Ambflsapur P.8. & Tahsfl Aaatukapur, Dwtfc Suiguja (G.G.). PBTITKMI TOU)BRSBC?nOR48a«IPCOI ®FCaBUBaUU. ntOCTTOWtB. ^BB dIwa'Ueab'. T.P.lMuu'awi.J.) Present: 8hriBJhupendTa-fiu^,iAdvoeate&tte OStMfQSSSSt (Pawed on OS/09/aoO^ 1. This petitton is directed ^aiast fhe otder dated 17/7/08 passed by fhe teamed SessjfMis Judge, Sui'guja at Ambikapur ia cmaitial revldon No. 93/2008 affirmmg tbe oider dated 24/6/2008 pes^d hy learmsd Special Judicial Magjsteate Ambihapur in crimiaal c^ No. 119/3007 mhcreby leamed Sessions Judge after appredatiag (he en^eaicc cofflected by non-applfcaat takcn fhc cognizaace for flie offisace piinishaNte uacker Section 138 of fhe Negotiabte Instnunents Act, t t seaS. isswed •&K piucess against fhe applicaat 2. The oider is chaBcnged <m fhe ^^uaad fliat eofurts bdBwfaas aot coasidcrcd fhe fact fhat noti.cc has notbeen snved upon (he a|^|Sean.t wbieh is condition paesiden.t under the pixwisitm of Section 2 of Sectfoa 138 3. |<rffhe Ncgotiahle InstnuuentsAct, 1881. OTdei- impugned, copy of conqiilmnt aad capy ofstatemeat ffled on bcfaalf of fhe applicant perused. It leveals fixaa tt»Qidcr i non-a^>]icaiit has fited ffae co^y of acknowledginent beaBng the seal of 'post tbat office but same was not s^iwd by ^r peracwn. Noa-appHcaat has •^- stated m Us statemait that aflier bouaciDg ofllie cfaequc hclas seBtthe notice tfaiough his counsel and same was recewed by &e appBcant. tfe has fited the actoaowledgtaent Thc rece^>t of fhe notice in this csrae is qucstion of&ct Accotding to fhe copyofcona.plaint aadcppyofstatenaeat it appears fhat noticc has been sfcrvcd upon ffae appScsaaA. PWa.wsgfi, ackaowledgment does aotbear fhe siyiatuic offhe appMcant. Coiart below has rejected fhe revisioa of fhe appBcant afier arriwing at a finding that onty iuabscnGC ofsignaturc oa fhe actocwtedgtnettt it csuaiot bc sdd fhat notice has aot been senred'upon flie sfip&ssaxt. la 'fhe mstaat case appUcant is required to pioye the tegpl icqtuinuicnt iacluding tt®scmee of notice. At this stage, it fa dtEBcidt to hold fhat noticc bas i»otbcea swved upon fhe appUcaat. Therofore, thc otder napaqped does aot saffer fe ittegaBty. Applieaat has not been abte to matee oat ttte case foT iiivoiltiag extraoxdiaaiy mherent jurisdictioa. C&Hscqucn.fly, the petition is dfamisscd at fhe stage of admission. 4. Inviewofttieabowe,I.A.No. 01/2008 staadsdisposedot Sd/- ^P.Shasna Judge -^^- -J.1