The Single Bench of Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Prasanta Bhatta Vs Abdul Sk held that a mistake on the part of the learned advocate representing any party beyond his/her knowledge should not act as a prejudice against his/her rights and contentions.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that the Respondent issued six account payee cheques However, the cheques were dishonoured with the remark ‘Insufficient Funds’.
A case was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 and the trial court acquitted the Respondent under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).
Contentions of the Amicus Curiae:
It was submitted that the conducting advocate was absent and his junior submitted before the Court that the matter had been settled between the parties. Thereafter, the Learned Trial Court acquitted the Respondent under Section 256 Cr. P.C. It was also submitted that the Trial Court should have given an acquittal under Section 257 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 256 Cr. P.C.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the mistake made by the learned advocate while representing a party that was outside of his or her understanding should not be used against that party's rights and claims.
It was enunciated that as per Section 362 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court could not recall the order after signing the same.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court held that the Complainant Bank should not be prejudiced due to an act on the part of the advocate and hence, the order passed by the Learned Trial Court was set aside and accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Prasanta Bhatta Vs Abdul Sk
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Case No: C.R.A. 45 of 2008
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Arnab Chatterjee
Advocate for the State: Adv. Mr. N.P. Agarwala
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
