Prafulla C. Pant JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant along one Avnish Bajaj and others was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 645 of 2004. After the investigation was concluded, charge sheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who on 14.02.2006 took cognizance of the offences punishable Under Sections 292 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, "the IT Act") against all of them. Avnish Bajaj filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 3066 of 2006 for quashment of the proceedings on many a ground before the High Court of Delhi which vide order dated 29.05.2008 came to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out Under Section 292 Indian Penal Code, but it expressed the opinion that Avinish Bajaj, the Petitioner in the said case, was not liable to be proceeded Under Section 292 Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, he was discharged of the offence Under Sections 292 and 294 Indian Penal Code. However, he was prima facie found to have committed offence Under Section 67 read with Section 85 of the IT Act and the trial court was directed to proceed to the next stage of passing of order of charge uninfluenced by the observations made in the order of the High Court.
3. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, Avnish Bajaj preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2009. The said appeal was tagged with Ebay India Pvt. Ltd. v. State and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1484 of 2009). The said appeals were heard along with other appeals that arose from the lis relating to interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "NI Act") by a three-Judge Bench as there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. MANU/SC/2118/2008 : (2008) 13 SCC 703.
4. Regard being had to the pleas raised by Avnish Bajaj and also the similarity of issue that arose in the context of NI Act, the three-Judge Bench stated the controversy that emerged for consideration thus:
2. In Criminal Appeals Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 2009, the issue involved pertains to the interpretation of Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short "the 2000 Act") which is in pari materia with Section 141 of the Act. Be it noted, a Director of the Appellant Company was prosecuted Under Section 292 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section