Sanjib Kundu vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4032 Cal

    12
02.08.2021

Ct.35 AKG CRR 541 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)

In Re: - An application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                                              And


             In the matter of:          Sanjib Kundu
                                                                               .... Petitioner


             Mr. M. L. Podder,
             Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh,
             Mr. D. Moitro
                                        ...For the Petitioner
             Mr. Rajib Ray,
             Mr. Sudip Kr. Dutta

The petitioner was convicted in connection with the proceedings

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 being

Complaint Case No. 217 of 2015 corresponding with T.R. No. 1247 of

2016 by the judgment and order dated August 16, 2019. The learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, 14 th Court, Calcutta, sentenced the

petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 9 lakh to the complainant company

within 90 days from the date of judgment in three installments.

It was further directed that in default, the petitioner shall

undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner preferred

an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court,

Calcutta being Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2019. At the time of

admission, the learned Sessions Judge admitted the appeal subject to

the conditions that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the

compensation amount before the learned Magistrate as a security

deposit.

Thereafter, the petition was taken up for further hearing on

January 22, 2021. The learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court,

Calcutta dismissed the appeal since in spite of repeated opportunity

being granted, the petitioner did not deposit 20% of the compensation

amount, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge.

In this revisional application, the petitioner sought to challenge

the said order dated January 22, 2021.

It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner,

that the petitioner was indisposed, and due to the pandemic situation

his business was running in a downfall. He could not deposit the 20%

of the compensation amount, as directed by the learned Sessions

Court.

Mr. Rajib Ray, learned advocate, appearing for opposite party no.

2 submits that the petitioner intentionally did not deposit the

compensation amount and was dragging the proceeding only to

harass his client.

In course of the hearing, the revisional application, it has been

submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the

petitioner is willing to deposit the 20% of compensation amount

within a period of three weeks from date.

In view of the said submissions, the revisional application is

disposed of by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the

20% of the compensation amount, as directed by the learned Chief

Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, within two weeks from date.

The petitioner shall pay further a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the opposite

party no. 2 within the said period. If the petitioner complies with this

order, the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated January 22,

2021 shall stand recalled and the appeal will be admitted.

If the appeal is admitted pursuant to deposit and payment of

cost in terms of the order, the learned appeal court will make an

endeavour to dispose of the appeal as early as possible preferably

within a period of one year from the date of this order.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)