TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. In the present case, for same cause of action complainant private respondent filed a complainant under Section 138 NI Act in the court of the CJM, South Tripura, Belonia which was registered as CR(NI)23 of 2013 in which evidence was taken and learned CJM by his judgment and order dated 11.04.2016 found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him of the said charge on various grounds - It is thus clear that accused was once tried in NI 23 of 2013 for the same cause of action in which evidence was taken and after full trial he was acquitted because the complainant could not establish the charge against him. Order of his acquittal still remains in force. In these circumstances, learned trial court committed error by entertaining a fresh complainant for the same cause of action between the same parties. The Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed. - Crl. Rev. P. No. 39 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2021 - S. G. Chattopadhyay , J. For the Appellant : H. K. Bhowmik , Adv. For the Respondents : P. K. Biswas, Sr. Adv. and Ratan Datta , P. P. JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant who is the respondent herein preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Sessions Judge at Belonia in South Tripura. The appeal was registered as Crl. Appl. No. 17 of 2016 and the learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 dismissed the appeal on the ground that such appeal was not sustainable in view of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. 7. After the appeal of the complainant was so dismissed, he filed a fresh petition in the court of the CJM under Section 138 NI Act. Since such fresh complaint was filed beyond statutory period of 01 month from the date on which cause of action arose, complainant respondent by filing a separate petition sought for condonation of delay in terms of the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 142 NI Act. 8. Based on the fresh complaint, NI 09 of 2017 was registered in the court of the learned CJM and by the order dated 09.03.2017, learned CJM condoned the delay and took cognizance of offence under Section 138 NI Act on the fresh complaint filed by the complainant respondent without providing any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. 9. Having received summons from the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the offence after condonation of delay and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Said petition was dismissed by the learned CJM by the impugned order and the case was listed for examination on the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 12. Challenging the said order the petitioner has approached this court by means of filing this criminal revision petition seeking the following reliefs: In the face of the facts and circumstances narrated herein above, the petitioner would pray that Hon'ble High Court would be gracious enough to (i) Admit this revision petition; (ii) Pass an interim order staying further proceeding with the trial in Case no. NI-9 of 2017 without notice and make the order absolute till disposal of this revision petition after hearing both the parties (iii) Issue notice upon the respondents; (iv) Call for the relevant records of the Court below; (v) After hearing set aside the orders dated 09.03.2017 and 25.03.2019 passed by the learned CJM, Belonia in case No. NI-09 of 2017, dismiss the second complaint dated 09.03.2017 and absolve the petitioner from liability of the case.; AND (vi) Pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proviso, satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly. 16. Counsel submits that the complainant challenged the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 wherein the learned Sessions Judge also held that the complaint was premature as no cause of action arose on 17.12.2013. Liberty was given to the complainant appellant to decide whether a fresh complaint seeking condonation of delay would be filed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh complainant before the jurisdictional CJM along with a petition for condonation of delay. The learned CJM condoned the delay and decided to proceed with the fresh complainant filed by the complainant. According to learned counsel, there is no wrong in the impugned order passed by the learned CJM and therefore, the present criminal revision petition in which the said order has been challenged deserves dismissal. 17. Perused the record. Considered the submissions made at the bar. In the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey(supra), appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against respondent No. 01 before expiry of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
