Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranjan Sengupta - vs Creative Constructtion on 19 July, 2022
19.07.2022
Ct. 33
Sd./8 CRR 317 of 2015
With
CRAN 4 of 2022
In the matter of :Ranjan Sengupta -petitioner.
Versus
Creative Constructtion.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee
Mr. Somdev Ash
Mr. Suman Majumder
..For the petitioner.
Mr. Sourjya Roy
....For the O.P.
The affidavit of service is taken on record.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
aged, ailing person. He further submits that at the time
of admission of revision, the petitioner has paid an
amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in terms of order of this court and
undertakes to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the
court below. Further placing reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Madan Lal Kapoor vs.
Rajiv Thapar and Ors. reported in (2007) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 623, submits that a criminal revision has
to be disposed of on merits and cannot be dismissed for
default. He has also relied upon an order passed in CRR
2509 of 2013 of this Hon'ble Court on identical issue.
Mr. Sourjya Roy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-complainant submits that
the complainant is also an aged person, and due to delay
2
in disposal of the revision filed at the instance of the
petitioner, he cannot get the benefits of the judgment
passed in his favour by the trial court. He further
submits for liberty to withdraw the amount deposited or
to be deposited by the petitioner.
It appears from order dated 27th April, 2022 that
due to non-representation on behalf of the petitioner, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, was directed
to execute the sentence so imposed on 31.07.2010. From
the case record, it is found that the petitioner, in
compliance to the order of this Court, deposited a sum of
Rs. 5 lakhs before the trial court on 26.03.2015. It is also
pertinent to note that the instant revisional application
was never dismissed for default. Rather the CRAN
application being no. 1892 of 2015 was dismissed for
default on 17th July, 2015. Considering the age of the
petitioner, the medical documents annexed to the
petition, the undertaking to deposit a further sum of Rs.5
lakhs and also bearing in mind the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal Kapoor (supra), I
am inclined to recall the order dated 27th April 2022.
Accordingly, in the aforesaid backdrop, the
petitioner is directed to deposit another sum of Rs. 5
lakhs within seven days from date and file money receipt
on the next date fixed for hearing.
In the meantime, there shall be stay of operation of
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
3
31.07.2010
in Case No. C 845 of 1999 till 12.08.2022 or
until further orders whichever is earlier.
Failing compliance as above, the stay so granted
shall automatically stand vacated, and the learned trial
court shall be at liberty to execute the sentence in
accordance with law.
Let the matter appear on 01.08.2022.
The opposite party is granted liberty to withdraw
the amount deposited by the petitioner on usual
undertaking and on proper verification along with
accrued interest.
The application being CRAN 4 of 2022 is
accordingly disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order
downloaded from the official website of this Hon'ble
Court.
( Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
