1 APL496.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 496 OF 2015
APPLICANT : Suresh Babarao Hood
Aged about 68 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Sai Nagar, Naka, Amravati,
Tah. and District Amravati.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT : Sunil Ramkrishna Rajgure,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. Tax Practitioner,
R/o Ravi Nagar, Amravati,
Tal. and District Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. M. Upadhye, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri T. G. Bansod, Advocate for the non-applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : DECEMBER, 11, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Shri D. M. Upadhye, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is the original complainant. He filed a ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:56 ::: 2 APL496.15.odt complaint against the non-applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said complaint, the learned Magistrate found that the non-applicant herein, who is represented by Shri T.G. Bansod, Advocate, has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the non-applicant.
3. Against such conviction, the present non-applicant preferred an appeal. The said appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2008. While staying the conviction, the learned lower Appellate Court directed the present non-applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.57,000/-. Accordingly, the present non-applicant deposited Rs.57,000/- to avail the stay granted in his favour.
4. The criminal appeal filed by the present non-applicant was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 08.01.2014.
5. Thereafter, the present non-applicant filed an application i.e. Misc. Criminal Application No. 76/2014 for recovery ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:56 ::: 3 APL496.15.odt of Rs.57,000/- from the present applicant, who in the meanwhile has withdrawn the amount of Rs.57,000/- deposited by the non- applicant. The said application is allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, the present application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The order impugned dated 20.6.2015 reads as under :
"Say not filed hence issue jungam warrant against the non-applicant."
The aforesaid order shows that the learned Sessions Judge has neither applied his mind at all to the given set of facts nor to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order is non-speaking. The reasons are the mirror of the thoughts of the Courts.
7. (i) In that view of the matter, the order impugned cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. The order dated 20.6.2015 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 76/2014 is hereby set aside.
(ii) Misc. Criminal Application No. 76/2014 to be decided afresh by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:56 :::
4 APL496.15.odt
(iii) The parties agreed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 19.12.2017. The learned Sessions Judge to decide the application within a period of one month from 19.12.2017. 8] The criminal application is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
JUDGE Diwale ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:56 :::