Deepak Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2800 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010156122021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./347/2022

            DEEPAK DAS
            SON OF SHRI GOLAP DAS
            R/O M. N. SINGHA ROAD, BARPETA,
            P.O. BARPETA
            DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:RAJU KAKATI
             SON OF LATE HAREN KAKATI
            R/O KAKATI COMPLEX
             MAIN ROAD

            BONGAIGAON TOWN

            P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON

            DIST. BONGAIGAON
            ASSAM

            PIN- 78338

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N SARKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                          BEFORE
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3

                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                         ORDER

06.08.2022 Heard Shri N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has put to challenge a part of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2019. The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the present petitioner against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon in NICR Case No. 26/2018 whereby the petitioner has been imposed the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.2,80,000/- and to undergo SI for a period of six months in default. While admitting the said appeal, the learned Session Judge, Bongaigaon had imposed a condition of payment of 20% of the fine within a period of 60 days. It is this condition which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding itself was instituted in gross abuse of the process inasmuch as the actual liability was Rs.2(two) lakhs out of which Rs.1(one) lakh has already been paid. However, by misusing the cheques, the amount has been enhanced to another Rs.2(two) lakhs. The learned counsel submits that he admits the actual liability to be total of Rs.2(two) lakhs and therefore the direction to deposit 20% would be onerous.

3. On the other hand, Shri P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that 20% of the amount would only be Rs.56,000/- and the when petitioner is himself admitting that the balance due is Rs.1(one) lakh, no grounds are being made out to interfere with the said order.

4. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that while entertaining the appeal, the learned Appellate Court of Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon by imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine has not acted in excess of jurisdiction and the same appears to be in accordance with law.

Page No.# 3/3

5. In view of the above, the present petition is rejected.

6. It is needless to state that the appeal shall proceed only after deposit of the amount order, vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2019.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant