IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-27501 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 05, 2009 Daksh Narain … Petitioner Versus The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the U.T., Chandigarh. ***** S.D. Anand, J. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court a receipt No.254542 certifying the deposit of Rs.40,000/- in the Court of the learned CJM, Chandigarh on 20.10.2009. Receipt has been returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the factum of deposit is not contested by the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the U.T., Chandigarh. Insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, the report made by the Registry is to the effect that the notice could not be issued to the respondent No.2 as the process fee was not filed. In the circumstances of the case, this Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by issuance of notice to the respondent No.2. In view of the fact that the entire amount in the impugned prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands deposited, the petitioner shall continue to be on interim bail and shall attend the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. November 05, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vinod Judge