2011 INSC 0153
                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   YIN Cheng Hsiung

                      Vs.

                   Essem Chemical Industries

                   (2011) 2 SCALE 0415

                   (Altamesh Kabir and Cyriac Joseph,JJ.,)

                   31.01.2011

                   ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01/08/2008 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 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, under Sections
138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant's prayer for discharge
having been rejected by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, since summons had been issued,
the High Court upheld the said order and did not interfere with the same. 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 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 Arising out of S. L. P. (Crl.) No.
6245 of 2009. staying abroad during the relevant period, would have to be considered by the
Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. Having heard 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 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.

3. Having regard to the above, and having particular regard to the observations made by this
Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others1, 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. 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

                   1                                        SpotLaw
to dispose of the matter in such manner as it deems fit. The order dated 11/09/2009 staying
the proceedings before learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant, is extended
until further orders by the High Court.;

2  SpotLaw