M/S. Maurik Advertising & ... vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 2321 Cal

   10
5.4.2023

sb Ct. 236

CRR 3112 of 2009

In the matter of : M/s. Maurik Advertising & Publication & Anr.

....Petitioners

Petitioners are not represented.

In the office report, despite service, none is appearing for the

opposite party no. 1. Notice could not be served upon the petitioner

as the company is no longer situated at the address given in the

cause title of the petition. This revisional application is pending for

more than 12 years. Therefore, instead of adjourning the matter suo

motu, I am inclined to dispose of the same on merit based on

materials available in the record.

The revisional application challenges the judgment and order

passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track

court no. 8, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in criminal appeal no. 52 of

2008 affirming thereby the judgment and order dated 10.6.2008

passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta in

case no. C-4803 of 2002.

Briefly stated that the petitioner in order to organise the

fashion show hired accommodation in the Ballroom, a unit of

opposite party no. 1 @ Rs. 4,00,000/- and towards the discharge of

their legal debt and/or liabilities issued eight cheques of Rs.

50,000/- each to the opposite party no. 1 but the cheques were not

encashed under the instruction of the drawer of the cheques. The

proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

was initiated by the hotel authority upon service of statutory notice,

which was not adhered to. The complainant being the drawee of the

cheques, filed the petition of complaint before the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate which was ultimately disposed of by the

learned trial court, holding the accused guilty to the charge under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused no.

1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- while accused no. 2

was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and pay a

sum of Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation. The petitioners before this

court, made an unsuccessful attempt to get the order of conviction

passed by learned trial court reversed by preferring criminal appeal

no 52 of 2008.

I have perused the impugned judgment as well as judgment

pronounced by learned trial court and I do not find any cogent

reason to differ with the concurrent findings expressed by learned

court below. The criminal revision has no merits and is dismissed

without costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)