Supreme Court - Daily Orders
V.K.Bhat vs G.Ravi Kishore on 29 February, 2016
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s).184 of 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6209 of 2011)
V.K. BHAT ...Appellant(s)
VERSUS
G. RAVI KISHORE AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 186 of 2011, whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case filed by the appellant herein.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Sukhbir Paul Kaur Date: 2016.03.10
4. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:- 14:59:52 IST Reason:
(a) The appellant and the respondents are 2 businessmen. They had monetary transactions and it appears that a Cheque bearing No. 482572 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs.4,32,00,000/- was issued in favour of the respondent-complainant. The said cheque was dishonored on presentation with an endorsement “insufficiency of funds”.
The respondent filed a complaint following the procedures provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the said Act. After service of summons, it appears that the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately on 13.4.2010, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the respondent-complainant was absent. The respondent-complainant approached the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and filed a revision, which was also dismissed on 3 10.8.2010 on the ground of absence of complainant.
(b) Subsequently, another revision petition
was filed and by an order dated
22.12.2010, the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge set aside the said order dated 13.4.2010 dismissing the said complaint and restored the Complaint Case No. 428 of 2009.
(c) An application was filed before the High Court by the appellant on the ground that a second revision is not maintainable. The High Court held that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge after being satisfied that the earlier order was passed only on technicalities, had entertained the second revision, and, therefore, the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge was not illegal. Challenging the said decision of the High Court, this special leave 4 petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised the point before us that the second revision petition is not maintainable and he further drew our attention to Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that dismissal in default tentamounts to acquittal and,therefore, the only remedy available to the respondent-complainant was by way of appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent could have the benefit of filing a second revision petition. He submitted that the second revision petition is not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel duly took us to Sections 256, 378, 397(3), 399 and 401(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that in accordance with Section 256, if the summons has been issued on complaint, the Court has power to dismiss the said complaint when a complainant does not appear before the court to pursue the complaint or for any other 5 reason, and in such a case, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused. Therefore, in the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint tentamounts to acquittal of the appellant. He further contended that the procedure laid down in the Code would also show that under Section 397(3), where both Sessions Judge and the High Court have concurrent powers, second revision would not be competent. He further contended that under Section 399(3), where any application for revision is made before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further revision shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. He further submitted that under Section 401(4) Cr.P.C., where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained. Therefore, he submitted that the Sessions Judge could not have entertained the second revision.
7. The learned counsel submits that in view of the 6 said provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court is not right to hear out the second revision petition, and thus the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable under the provisions of law.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is some force in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and we hold, in the facts of the case, that dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal as contemplated in Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally in Second Revision Petition as well as the judgment passed by the High Court upholding the same. We do not intend to give any further comments in the matter.
10. However, observing the amount involved in this case, we only grant liberty to respondent No.1 to 7 take such steps as may be advised, in accordance with the provisions available in law and to proceed with the matter before the appropriate forum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
….....…..…………………..J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) ….....…..…………………..J. (AMITAVA ROY) New Delhi;
February 29, 2016.
8
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.10 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
6209/2011
(Arising out of the final judgment and order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the High court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal revision Case No. 186 of 2011) V.K.BHAT Petitioner(s) VERSUS G.RAVI KISHORE & ANR Respondent(s) (with office report) (For final disposal) Date : 29/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P., Adv. Mr. Arun Devdas, Adv.
Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) State of Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.
(Not present) 9 Mr. Jayant Muthraj, Adv. Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv.
Ms. Reena Roy, Adv.
Ms. Seema Jain, Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SNEH LATA SHARMA] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR]
COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.
(Signed order is placed on the file)