Shriram Transport Finance Company ... vs Yusuf Khan on 18 January, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shriram Transport Finance Company ... vs Yusuf Khan on 18 January, 2024

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                             ON THE 18 th OF JANUARY, 2024
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9966 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                         AUTHORIZED PERSON/BRANCH MANAGER SHAILESH
                         SINGH
                         S/O MAHENDRA PRATAP
                         BRANCH OFFICE SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE
                         COMPANY LTD.
                         BRANCH PLOT NO. 1B GROUND FLOOR
                         VRINDAWAN COLONY NEAR SIDDESHWARI MANDIR
                         BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                         (SHRI SULABH SAMAIYA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         YUSUF KHAN S/O SMILE KHAN
                         R/O. HUT BEDI IMLIPURA RAJPUR
                         DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)


                               This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Barwani in SCNIA No.104/2018.

2. The appellant is aggrieved the order of acquittal of respondent only on the ground of non-availablity of documents and evidence is not in accordance Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 23-01- 2024 10:16:33 2 of law because the same was passed ex-parte and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner nor any cost was imposed. Therefore, counsel prayed that at least, in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be granted one last opportunity by imposing cost.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that one chance be given for furnishing defence evidence along with documents before the trial Court. Counsel relied upon the judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad & Anr. vs. The State of M.P. in Cr.R. No.2752/2022 vide order dated 26.07.2022 and the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Honnaiah T.H. vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022(3) Crimes (SC) 284, wherein it has been held that a private complainant can file a revision petition in certain circumstances, including when the trial Court wrongly shuts out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce.

4. None for the respondent even after service of notice.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. On due consideration of the reasons assigned by the trial Court, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it appears that this order cannot be treated as interlocutory order and it shall be regarded as the order which affects the finality of the case. In the case of Honnaiah T.H (supra) it has been held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. A Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory in nature.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 23-01- 2024 10:16:33 3

7. Since, the counsel engaged on behalf of the petitioner was to adduce defence evidence and to furnish documents against the application filed by the accused, and as he was not available on that day due to personal obligations, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity ought to have been granted by the trial Court to the petitioner by imposing appropriate cost. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition

8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside by granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence and furnish documents against the application, subject to deposit the cost of Rs.10000/- before the trial Court and the matter is remitted back to the learned JMFC concerned with a direction to consider the petitioner's application afresh and adjudicate the same in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

9. Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 19.02.2024 for further proceedings in SCNIA No.104/2018. He is also directed that in every circumstances the defence evidence should be conducted and the requisite documents should be furnished. It is also made clear that if on the next date due to any other reason like Presiding Officer is on leave or any other causality only one chance be given to the petitioner for whatsoever reason.

10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 23-01- 2024 10:16:33

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court