TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H MAHESHWARI , JJ. JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision No.3048 of 2005 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by respondent No.1 herein and while setting aside the order of the Appellate Court, awarded simple imprisonment for two months to the appellant herein and directed him to pay a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs by way of compensation to respondent No.1. 2. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow. 3. Respondent No.1 (complainant) filed a complaint (CR No.298/1995) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al leave in this Court. 8. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order remand the case to the Appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 10. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1 and awarding sentence to the appellant herein and compensation to respondent No.1. The reasons are not far to seek as mentioned hereinbelow. 11. First, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional error in allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 15. We, also perused the order of the Appellate Court dated 12.07.2005 (running in 25 pages) with a view to find out as to whether it was justified in remanding the case to the Magistrate. 16. Having perused the order, we are of the view that the Appellate Court erred in remanding the case to the Magistrate. 17. In our view, there was neither any need and nor any occasion to remand the case to the Magistrate. In other words, we are of the view that there was enough material before the Appellate Court on the basis of which the appeal on merits could have been decided one way or the other instead of remanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
