Bombay High Court
M/S. Gandhi Sales Corporation, ... vs M/S. Yash Parivahan, Thr. Its ... on 16 February, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 36.REVN.39-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 39 OF 2022
( M/s. Gandhi Sales Corporation
Vs.
M/s. Yash Parivahan)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the Applicant.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2022.
Heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the
applicant, who invites my attention to the fact, that on an
earlier occasion the complaint filed by the respondent,
came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 05.09.2012
and the applicant was acquitted by the learned JMFC,
against which, an appeal was filed before this Court in
which by the judgment dated 12.03.2018, the judgment
of acquittal by the learned JMFC was set-aside and the
matter was remanded back to the learned JMFC leaving
every question and defence expressly open. After the
remand, the complainant had sought permission to file
documents vide Exh. 73 (page 98) which came to be
allowed by an order dated 19.04.2018 below Exh. 1
(page 102). The applicant/accused, had also filed an
application for grant of permission to file documents on
record vide Exh. 76, production of which was allowed on
2 36.REVN.39-2022.odt
20.04.2018. An application under Section 294 of CrPC
filed by the Accused/A on 20.04.2018 was not decided
nor the say of the other side was called. By an earlier
order dated 16.04.2018 below Exh.1, noting that counsel
for the complainant has filed an application to file the
documents in pursuance to the order of this Court, the
learned trial court had directed the parties to proceed on
every given date without fail and there would be no
repetition of evidence which was already adduced and
the parties were directed to argue the matter without fail
if no further evidence was to be adduced by filing the
pursis to that effect. It is stated at bar that no pursis was
filed by the either of the parties. It is contended, that
since the additional documents were filed by the
complainant as well as the applicant, the necessity of
recording the further evidence was there, however, no
such opportunity was given and the matter was heard
and decided by the learned trial court by the judgment
dated 08.05.2018 convicting the applicant for the offence
under section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to suffer
SI for five months. Compensation of Rs. 11,30,000/- was
also directed to be paid within 30 days in default SI of
five months was awarded. On deposit of an amount of
1,20,000/- before the learned JMFC, vide CCD No. 149
dated 18.07.2018, part of the compensation stood
deposited. The appeal against the said judgment came to
be dismissed by judgment dated 08.12.2021, ignoring the
contention that after filing of the document and
application under Section 294 there was necessity of
giving an opportunity of recording evidence as spelt out
3 36.REVN.39-2022.odt
from ground No. 3 (page 131) in the memo of appeal,
considering which, issue notice to the non-applicant,
returnable in two weeks.
Criminal Application No. 38/2022. In view of
the reasons stated above, the sentence dated 08.05.2018
passed by the learned JMFC shall stand suspended upon
the applicant depositing sum of Rs. Three lakh out of the
compensation awarded within a period of one week from
today before the trial Court. The applicant shall be
released on bail on furnishing a P.R bond in sum of
Rs. 25,000/- and a solvent surety of the like amount.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
Signed By:SHRIKANT
DAMODHAR BHIMTE
Signing Date:16.02.2022 18:22
