Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dang Pharmaceuticals vs Unknown on 7 June, 2022
07.6.2022
Court No.29
SD
CRR 3751 of 2019
In the matter of: Dang Pharmaceuticals
....petitioner.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
Mr. Shakti Halder
...for the Petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the proceeding being Complaint Case
No.20A of 2016/ T.R. No.476 of 2016 under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, present revisional application has been
preferred by the petitioner.
This is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act where the accused person had issued 11 cheques
of Dang Pharmaceuticals total amounting to Rs.3,13,000/- and the
said cheques bear the signature of the accused person.
It appears from the copy of the order sheets submitted by the
complaint/petitioner that initially the matter was heard on the
point of maintainability. Subsequently, it was transferred to the 6th
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas and
renumbered as T.R. 476 of 2016 wherein the learned Magistrate
had fixed the matter on January 18, 2017 for initial ezhar. After
taking initial ezhar, learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process
upon the accused person and subsequently, on February 13, 2017
the accused person, namely, Ramesh Panjabi surrendered before
the Court and obtained bail. The plea was taken vide order dated
March 6, 2017 when the substances of the accusation under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was read over and
explained to the accused person to which the accused person
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Then vide order dated August 17, 2017, February 7, 2018
and March 7, 2018, the examination of complaint witness was
completed and the matter was fixed on May 8, 2018 for examination
of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. On July 24, 2018 the accused person was examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
learned trial court was pleased to fix August 29, 2018 as accused
decline to adduce any defence witness. Then the complainant filed
written argument and September 18, 2018 was fixed for delivery of
judgment but for the reasons not disclosed in the order, the
judgment was not delivered on the date and the case was deferred
to October 9, 2018 for delivery of judgment. Subsequently, on
October 9, 2018 the accused prays for time. On the basis of prayer
made by the accused, the delivery of judgment was deferred and
subsequently, thereafter the case was deferred on two three
occasions but the judgment was not delivered. On January 29,
2019, on the basis of prayer made by accused, the PW1 was
recalled by Magistrate concerned for cross-examination by invoking
power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
PW1 accordingly cross-examined on February 5, 2019 and then
several dates were being fixed for further cross-examination of PW1
and again the case was again fixed for argument on September 27,
2019 and lastly, it was fixed on December 26, 2019 for argument.
After that this Court called for the lower court record and for
which nothing happened and pointing out this peculiarity of the
order as mentioned above, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that once the trial was concluded and the date was fixed
for delivery of judgment, how the proceeding before trial court is
dragged. The petitioner in this case accordingly prayed for passing
appropriate order for early disposal of the proceeding.
In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the case
positively within three months from the date of receipt of the lower
court record as well as the order passed by this Court.
Let a copy of this order along with lower court record be sent
down at once.
CRR 3751 of 2019 is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied
to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
