Order
1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-8-2008 passed by the Calcutta High Court in CRR No. 1442 of 2008, disposing of the appellant's revision application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and rejecting his prayer for discharge and for quashing the proceedings in connection with Case No. C-1066 of 2005 pending before the VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The appellant's prayer for discharge having been rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, since summons had been issued, the High Court upheld the said order and did not interfere with the same.
3. As far as the prayer made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the High Court accepted the submissions made on behalf of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that the contentions raised by the appellant to the effect that he had no concern with the day-to-day running of the partnership business and that he was staying abroad during the relevant period, would have to be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage of the trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to sustain the second part of the order passed by the High Court since, in our view, the appellant herein was entitled to show at the initial stage when the plea had not yet been taken, that he was in no way responsible for the day-to-day management of the business and that he was not in India when the offence is said to have been committed.
5. Having regard to the above, and having particular regard to the observations made by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, we make it clear that the High Court should examine the entries in the appellant's passport for determining the aforesaid question since it is the appellant's case that he left India in January 2003, and has not returned to India thereafter.
6. Accordingly, we allow this appeal to the aforesaid extent. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter afresh, if possible within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In the event the appellant is not able to produce the entries from the passport within the said period, the High Court will be at liberty to dispose of the matter in such manner as it deems fit. The order dated 11-9-2009 staying the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant, is extended until further orders by the High Court.