Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sakti Bera vs Unknown on 22 August, 2022
22.08.2022
Srimanta
IA No.:CRAN/1/2022
in
CRR/1409/2021
In the matter of : Sri Sakti Bera
...petitioner.
Mr. Sekhar Barman, Adv.,
Mr. Bivash Banerjee, Adv.,
Mr. Rohit Prasad, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.,
Ms. Debjani Sahu, Adv.
...for the State.
Mr. Tauhid Khan, Adv.,
Mrs. Marufa Mondal, Adv.
...for the opposite party no. 2.
The matter has been listed on the prayer of the
petitioner in a disposed of revision challenging an order of
conviction and sentence passed in Complaint Case No. 1348C
of 2015 and subsequently affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.
26/2019.
The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for committing
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act
and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and
also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said order
was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner moved this Court in revision.
The revisional application was admitted by this Court
vide order dated 12th August, 2021 on condition of depositing
a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently this Court
passed an order dated 20th September, 2021 directing the
petitioner to deposit the rest amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in two
installments of Rs.1,50,000/- each.
In both the orders dated 12th August, 2021 and 20th
September, 2021 this Court did not observe that the money
which was directed to be deposited by the petitioner was
towards compensation amount. For this reason, the Learned
Advocate for the opposite party submitted on 22 nd June, 2022
that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was directed to be
deposited by the petitioner vide order dated 21 st August, 2022
may be treated as part of compensation amount.
Subsequently, this Court disposed of the said revision of
specific observation that as the petitioner has already paid
Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of the opposite party no. 2, the
said amount may be accepted as compensation amount and
in that case the opposite party no. 2 did not press for
execution of term imprisonment of one month. In view of
such circumstances, I do not find any ambiguity in the order
dated 22nd June, 2022.
It is pointed out by the Learned Advocate for the
opposite party no. 2 that in the Judgment dated 22 nd June,
2022 the complaint case number was wrongly recorded as
2348C/2015 instead of 1348C/2015.
This Court verifies the record. The petitioner mentioned
the complaint case number in the cause title of the revisional
application as Complaint Case No. 2348C/2015.
However, on perusal of the certified copy of the
judgment passed by the Learned Magistrate as well as the
judgement passed by the Appellate Court, I find that the
number of the complaint case is 1348C/2015.
In view of such circumstances, the complaint case
number against which the instant revision was filed be read
as case no. 1348C/2015.
With the above observation, CRAN/1/2022 is disposed
of.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )
