1. Mr.
Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court to the pay orders issued in favour of the second respondent to submit that the same have been issued by the accused No.1 Satish Chokshi, Manager of the Ahmedabad People s Co-op. Bank Ltd., Bhadra Branch. It is submitted that the present applicant who is the General Manager of the Bank has not issued any such pay order. Referring to the notice issued under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is pointed out that such notice was issued only to Satish Chokshi and no such notice was issued to the applicant herein. It is submitted that under the circumstances, insofar as the applicant is concerned, the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act suffers from various infirmities and as such, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in issuing process qua the applicant.
2. On the other hand, Mr. J.N. Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has opposed the application by submitting that the applicant herein was the Regional Manager of the Bank and it was he who was responsible to honour the pay order and as such, he is also equally involved in the offence in question.
3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the court is of the view that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant, inasmuch as, no notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been issued to him nor has he issued the pay orders in favour of the respondent No.2. Under the circumstances, issue rule returnable on 18th November, 2013. Mr. A.N. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. J.N. Jadeja, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. By way of interim relief, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.92/2010 pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.27 (N.I. Act), Ahmedabad are hereby stayed qua the present applicant alone. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed further with the complaint in question qua the respondent No.3 Satish Chokshi.
4. It will also be open for the respondent No.2 to institute any other proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, if so permissible in law, in respect of the offence in question.
Direct Service is permitted.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 3 of 3