Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Maheshchandra Gupta vs Manjindersingh S/O Manoharsingh Kalsi on 9 September, 2019
Author: S.M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
apeal.572.08 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2008
(Sanjay s/o Maheshchandra Gupta vs. Manjindersingh Manoharsingh Kalsi)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri R.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Appellant.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2019.
Heard Shri R.B. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the appellant - complainant. None appears for the respondent - accused.
The complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court under 138 of N.I. Act), Nagpur on 30th June, 2007. I have perused the said order. When this order was passed, the accused had filed certain documents before the trial Court. It consists of three cheques and bank statement of the accused. The accused had come with a case that he has repaid the amount of dishonoured cheques, which is a foundation for filing of criminal complaint.
It appears that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused mainly for two reasons. One is non-appearance of the complainant and second is repayment of the amount of cheques. The grievance of the complainant is that the learned Magistrate had shown undue haste in ::: Uploaded on - 09/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2019 03:49:19 ::: apeal.572.08 2/2 passing the impugned order. The learned Magistrate ought to have given time to the complainant to file reply. It is true that subsequent repayment of the cheques amount does not make the complaint non- maintainable. Because, once there is a failure to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, offence is complete. Subsequent repayment can be considered only as a mitigating circumstance. But, it seems that the learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint has considered receipt of the payment by the complainant as a reason for non- attendance of the complainant.
It appears that, the case is fixed for recording the plea of the accused. Provisions about the consequence of non-appearance of the complainant in a summons case have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Today, I find it sufficient to mention the above circumstances in the order only. Hence, I am keeping this matter on 11th of September, 2019 for final order.
JUDGE *sandesh ::: Uploaded on - 09/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2019 03:49:19 :::