w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Calcutta Veener Industries v/s Ashok Kumar Mehrotre

    Criminal Revision No. 1637 of 2000

    Decided On, 07 July 2000

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SEN GUPTA

   



Judgment Text

The present revisional application is against an order dated 28.3.2000 dismissing the appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 65 of 1998 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

2. It appears that the present petitioners were convicted in case No. C/I 1694/95 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta vide judgment and order No. dated 9.7.98 under Section 138/- 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs each and the petitioner No. 2 was further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 200 days. Against such order of conviction, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, which was admitted for hearing.

3. The lower Court records were called for and finally the appeal became ready for hearing on 4.2.2000. The learned advocate for the petitioner in the trial Court, due to mistake in noting the date of the appeal, failed to take any steps on that date and the learned Judge issued show cause notice upon the petitioners fixing 28.3.2000. It appears from the impugned order that on 28.3.2000 the petitioners did not appear and the appeal was summarily dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that once an appeal is admitted the Court is under obligation to hear the same and to dispose of the same on merit and cannot dismiss the same merely due to absence of the appellants. I find sufficient merits in such submission. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as also by other High Court that an appeal once admitted, cannot be dismissed summarily only because of non-appearance of the learned advocate of the appellant. The appeal is to be disposed of on merits. I have also heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 submits that the present revisional application does not have any merit in as much as the petitioners did not take any steps before the trial Court for hearing of the appeal.

5. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, I allow this application and set aside the impugned order dated 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, I direct the learned Judge to restore the appeal and to hear out the same within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. The learned Judge is directed to hear out the appeal and dispose of the same on merits without granting any unnecessary adjournment to eithe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r of the parties. 6. The revisional application is accordingly allowed. 7. Officer is directed to supply an urgent xerox certified copy of this order to the learned advocates for the respective parties at an early date, if applied for. Revision allowed.
O R