Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 February, 2022
11.02.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Item No.6 CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Ct.No.34
dc.
C.R.R. 521 of 2016
with
CRAN 1 of 2021
with
CRAN 2 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
Sanjay Kumar Kedia
versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
In Re: An Application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee,
Mr. Daanish Haque,
Mr. A. Awasthi,
Mr. Sharequl Haque,
Mr. Abdul Zahid,
Mr. Amitabrata Hait ... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Diprav Deb,
Mr. Tapas Saha,
Mr. Sourav Mondal,
Mr. Debdatta Saha ... For the Opposite Party No.2.
The subject matter of this revisional application relates
to judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the
learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in
Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2013 arising out of the judgment
and order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta in connection
with Case No. C/23553/2007.
By the judgment and order dated 30.07.2012, the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta was
pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer
T.R.C. and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- to
2
the complainant within one month from the date of passing of
the said order.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order,
the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the
learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which was
time barred and accordingly, the said revisional application
was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
The said judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed
in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2013 reflects that the learned
court without addressing the issues of the legality or illegality
of the judgment, so passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate in the complaint case, dismissed the revisional
application for being barred on the point of limitation thereby
rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. A final judgment and order of conviction and sentence
has serious ramifications. As such, the courts should
ordinarily not bar the accused or the petitioner from
addressing the issues on merits. Accordingly, the judgment
and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Chief
Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No.
65 of 2013 is hereby set aside.
At the time of admission of this revisional application, a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.02.2020 was pleased to
direct as follows :
"Subject to the deposit of Rs.3.95 lakhs i.e., the amount of the
cheque by the petitioner, without prejudice, before the learned
3
trial court within three weeks from this date, the operation of
the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed till six
weeks from this date. The complainant shall be at liberty to
withdraw the said sum, but such payment shall be subject to
the final decision in this revision."
In view of the liberty granted to the
complainant/opposite party no.2 to withdraw such amount
during the pendency of this revisional application, I am of the
opinion that the order dated 05.03.2020, passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, refusing
such prayer of the complainant/opposite party no.2 was not
in consonance with the order passed by this Court on
04.02.2020
.
The learned Magistrate is directed to release the
amount of Rs.3,95,000/- (rupees three lakh ninety five
thousand) so deposited in connection with the complaint case
being C/23553/2007 to the complainant/opposite party no.2
on usual undertaking. The said withdrawal would obviously
be subject to the final outcome of Criminal Revision No. 65 of
2013.
With the aforesaid observations, the revisional
application being CRR 521 of 2016 is partly allowed.
Interim order would be applicable, as directed above.
All pending connected applications, if any, are
consequently disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all
requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
