Bombay High Court
M/S. Taori Marketing, Nagpur Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 8 August, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-appa457.16.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) No.457 OF 2016
M/s. Taori Marketing,
City Post Office Road, Itwari,
Nagpur, through its Partner,
Shri Satyanarayan s/o. Champalalji Taori,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Taori Marketing,
City Post Office Road, Itwari, Nagpur.
ig : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
Deleted as per
1. State of Maharashtra,
Circular Through PSO Tahasil, Nagpur.
dt.24.6.2015.
1. 2. Mr. Ramakant Lute,
Aged Major,
Occupation : Business,
C/o. Sai Enterprises, Main Road,
At Post - Ranala, Tah. Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri N.G. Jetha, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri C.N. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 8
AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
J-appa457.16.odt 2/4
2. The record of the case before the trial Court shows that on
23rd August, 2013 evidence on affidavit was tendered by the appellant
and thereafter the case was fixed for filing of documents and recording of
evidence for 7.9.2013. However, on that date evidence was not
recorded, nor the documents were filed. Thereafter, the case came to be
adjourned for the same purpose from time to time till it was dismissed in
default on 9th September, 2014. On each of the previous dates when the
case was adjourned to the next date, the trial Court did not record any
reason for adjourning the case. On all these dates the record further
shows, the appellant, who is an accused in the present case, was
personally present before the trial Court except on two dates i.e. of
6.1.2014 and 25.2.2014. Even on 9th September, 2014, although the
appellant was absent, his learned counsel was present in the Court. On
that date, it is seen from the record, no attempt was made by the trial
Court in eliciting the reason from the Advocate of the appellant for
absence of the appellant on that date, which was an unusual thing in this
case, as the appellant was consistent in his presence before the Court all
along. On the contrary, it appears that inspite of the appellant remaining
consistently present before the trial Court, on not just one or two dates,
but several dates, the trial Court did not seize the opportunity of
recording evidence of the complainant. In such circumstances, it would
be unfair to place entire blame upon the appellant for his absence on one
J-appa457.16.odt 3/4
single date. If it were so, it would lead to injustice and unfair treatment
of a person who is seeking justice from the Court. The impugned order,
thus cannot be sustained in the eye of law. That apart, no prejudice
would be caused to the respondent. This appeal, therefore, deserves to
be allowed.
3. The appeal is allowed.
4. The impugned order dated 9.9.2014, passed by the 27 th Joint
Civil Judge, Junior Division & J.M.F.C., Nagpur, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
5. The summary case stands restored and it shall be tried and
disposed of in accordance with law.
6. Both the parties to appear before the trial Court on 22 nd
August, 2016.
JUDGE
okMksns
J-appa457.16.odt 4/4
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : D.W. Wadode, P.A.
Uploaded on : 9.8.2016.
