? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Q4 \ Criminal Revision No.249 of 2010 APPLICANT: Brijmohan Agarwal S/o Late Kali Charan A/A 57 years R/o Danlparl Tahsul and Dustrlct Ralgarh (C G ) Versus 9 Madhukar Smghama S/o Shn Shankar Lal R/o and Post Lallunga Tahsul Gharghoda District Ralgarh (C G ) {Criminal reVISIon under Section 397 read With Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure} Present: Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant. None y, ‘ present for the noniapplicant, though served. NON—APPLICANT/: I (Accused) Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J t ‘ ORAL ORDER (18 3 2011) 1 By this reVISion under Section 397 read With Section 401 of the CrPC the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 10 2- 2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessmns Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.133/2009, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the order taking cognizance and initiating proceeding against the non-applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act 1881 (for short ‘the Act) dated 17-4 2009 passed by the Chief JudiCIal Magistrate Raigarh In Criminal Complaint Case No 471/2009 . WheEn the matter Is called for hearing second time, nope present for the non-applicant though served No representation is made . Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this reVISIon are that as per record of the tnal Court the non applicant has executed cheque in favour of the applicant for discharge of loan and other liabilities legally recoverable cheque was presented before the bank for encashment same was bounced thereafter after complying the procedure prowded under Section 138 of the Act the applicant has filed complaint against the non applicant under Section 138 of the Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigarh After inquiry under Chapter XV of the CrPC the Chief JudiCial Magistrate Raigarh has issued process against the non applicant and has taken cognizance of the offence same was challenged before the revisional Court and vide order impugned, on the basis of copy of bank account filed on behalf of the non-applicant, the revisional Court has reversed the order taking cognizance and the proceeding against the non-appiicant on the ground that the statement of account reveals sufficient amount in the account of the non-applicant at the time of such dishonour of cheque. . i have heard Iearned counsei for the applicant, perused the order impugned and record of the Courts below. . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the revisional Courts are required to examine legality & propriety of the order passed by the trial Court on the basis of material available on record of the trial Court and on the basis of material produced before the revisional Court Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has filed complaint on the \ ‘ . baSIs of bounce of cheque and written information given by the bank authorities, unless such information is proved as forged and false, the revisiohal Court was not competent to reverse the order of the trial Court. . Record of the trial Courtreveals that the applicant has filed complaint on the basis of written information received from the bank relating to dishonour of cheque on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Unless such document is declared forged illegal and nonest the trial Court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance and in proceeding against the non applicant In case any document is filed at the reVI5ional stage the reVISIonal Court was under obligation to prowde an opportunity for contradicting the same. . Virtually, the revisional COurt was under obligation to remit the case to' the trial Court for’passing the order afresh on the basis of the aforesaid document as per law, but instead of providing such opportunity the revisional Court‘has passed the order impugned and thereby committed illegality. The revisional Court has exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it. . Consequently, the revision deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. Order dated 10-2-2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raigarh in Criminal Revision No 133/2009 is hereby set aSide and the order dated 1742009 passed by the Chief JudICiai {Magistrate Raigarh in Criminal Complaint Case No 471/2009 is hereby restored The applicant is directed to present before the trial Court for further proceeding of the case on 20-4 2011 O §\ /‘—// sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge