Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page 1941

1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for both sides, the same is taken up for final hearing and, is being disposed off by this order.

2. This revision petition in filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. praying that this Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the XIX ACMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 15062/2003 by issuing FLW and NBW against the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows. The petitioner being an accused before the trial court challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trail court in C.C. No. 15062/03, dated 1.8.07 which has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 1407/05. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts-below, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 1713/2006. Initially this Court granted interim stay and admitted the matter. Since the petitioner has not complied the order passed in Crl.R.P. No. 1713/2006, interim order came to be recalled. When the matter stood thus, the respondent herein filed an application before the trial Court to execute the order of conviction and sentence and NBW as well as FLW were issued against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

4. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that under Section 357 Cr.P.C. when an appeal or revision is admitted, the trial Court in barred from executing the order of sentence passed by it. Therefore, issuance of NBW and FLW against the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said order of issuance of FLW and NBW are to he set aside unless this Court disposes off the revision petition. The trial Court cannot open a dummy order sheet when the LCR has been already submitted and received by this Court. It is in violation of the provisions and also violation of the liberty of the citizens. Further it is argued that the revision petition is maintainable since the court has passed the order after admitting the revision petition. Therefore, the revision is maintainable and this Court may dispose of this revision petition as well as Criminal Revision Petition No. 1713/2006 filed by the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner rail ad on the following decisions:

The right of appeal in not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right.
Therefore, when the petitioner has got a right to prefer revision against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the learned sessions Judge and this Court has admitted the same, interim order granted is recalled for non-compliance, until the earlier revision petition is disposed off, the trial court has no right to open a dummy order sheet and issue FLW against him. Hence, he prays for staying the operation and execution of the order under challenge.

6. I have carefully examined, the materials placed on record. The point that arises for consideration and determination is, whether the order under revision calls for interference?

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein was an accused before the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the trial Court has convicted the petitioner for balancing of cheque and the appeal came to be dismissed and the revision preferred by the petitioner in this Court in the earlier revision petition was also dismissed which has been challenged before the Supreme Court. While Page 1944 dismissing the SLP, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within four weeks but in spite of such a direction he has not complied the order of the Apex Court which shows that he has no regards for the orders passed by the Apex Court. He has filed a revision in the year 2006 challenging the order passed by the Courts-below. Of course, this Court has granted ex-parte interim order with certain conditions. Since he has not complied the orders, this Court has recalled the order. When entire records were called for by this Court, it is the duty of the Courts-below to submit the records. The respondent being the complainant he is entitled to execute the order passed by the trial court which has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the trial Court is entitled to open a dummy order sheet and hence rightly issued NBW and FLW for recovery of the amount. Therefore, the present revision petition is not at all maintainable as these is no incorrect or illegal findings in issuing NBW and FLW and the petition is liable to be dismissed.