HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal M.P. No. 247 of 2007 Applicant: Rajjab Ali •^ Versus Respoiidex&t: M/s. MinakshiEnterprises ^ P05T FOR OR&ER ON IH August, 2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge l''"- < .1- HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal M.P.No. 247 of 2007 Applicaat: ^" Versus Reapoiident: Rajjab Ali, aged about 40 years, son of Sayyed Yusuf Ali, resident of A-67, Ageya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tehsll and district Bilaspur (C.G) M/s. Minakshi Enterprises, Proprietor Sunil Sultaniya, In frout of High Court, Bilaspur Tehsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) SB: HON'BLB SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. Presence: Shri C.D. Sharraa, Advocate for the applicant. O RD E R Heard on adniission as well as on I.A, No. 1 for stay. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is directed against the order dated 13-6-2007 passed in Crim.inal Revision No, 74/2007 whereby learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has rejected the Crinxinal Revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3-5-2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, 3, The grievance of the petitioner is that a coniplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrunients Act was filed on 29-10-2005 whereupon notices were directed to be issued to hiiii and bailable warrant was executed for his appearance on 6-9-2006 aud ultiiaately on account of his non-appearance on 26-9-2006, warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner, He preferred a revision against the issuance of the warrant of arrest which was rejected. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was that the process <.... ^: •^1: issued against hiin did not acconipany a copy of the coiaplaint as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 204 of Cr,P,C, and/ therefore, thelearned trial Court ought to have rejected the complaint under sub-section(4) of Section 204 of the Cr.P.C, However, the aforesaid objection was rejected by the trial Court with an observation that the acciised appeared on 6-9-2006, thereafter on 26-9-2006 through his advocate, He further appeared on 5-2-2007 and furnished bail and thereafter, he has appeared on 28-2-2007 and particulars of offence were explained to the applicant however, at no point of tinie, the aforesaid objectiou of noii-supply of the copy of the coiaplaint was taken, and, therefore/ the application preferred by the applicant isnot bonafide, lii the revision, learued Additional Sessions Judge observed that the trial Court had uo power to review his own order of issuance of process against the petitioner and the irregularity, if any, in the issuance of process was curable aud the trial is not vitiated, and dism.issed the revision, 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or infirniity in the orders passed by both the Court below and tbe sam.e do not call for any interference under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. 6. The petition being devoid of substance is liable to be disraissed and is hereby disniissed at adniission stage. 1 Sd/- 1 Dhirendra Mishra Judge f/