Dismissed

G.B. Laboratories Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019CRLR/574/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision challenging a Sessions Court order ending proceedings on a Section 138 cheque dismissal ground relying on the Supreme Court Santosh judgment which holds revisions cannot be dismissed in default when absent but must be decided on merit.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; judgment of Sessions Court affirmed; Stay order vacated.

G.B. Laboratories Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 574 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- G.B. Laboratories Ltd. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Viresh Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of revisionist or his counsel.

¶6

The criminal revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 15.02.1992 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 1990 filed by opposite party Umashanker Divedi by which Revisional Court has set aside the proceedings and compliant filed by revisionist (G. B. Laboratories through its Managing Director Ganesh Babu Gupta) vide complaint case No. 118 of 1990 under Sections 406, 420, 471, 511 I.P.C.

¶7

Since the revision is very old but the same cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.

¶8

I have heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

Main ground taken by the revisionist in this revision is that finding of revisional court is against the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act because opposite party, Umashankar Divedi issued cheques in favour of G.B. Laboratories but cheques were not honoured as there was no money in the account of Mr. Umashanker Divedi also informed that said account has been transferred to Orai. Therefore, Mr. Divedi got his accoutn transferred before issuing the cheques to the revisionist. Revision filed by opposite party no. 2 after expiry the period of limitation act and Umashanker Divedi filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but no order on the application was passed and hence the revisional court was not empowered to encroach the jurisdiction or the Magistrate who has applied his mind and opined that prima facie case against

¶10

Umashanker Divedi was made out. Revision was time barred after 22.05.1990 bur revisionist applied for a copy of the said order on 06.06.1990 but did not file the revision for two more weeks. Although he failed to explain the delay in filing the revision from 22.05.1990 to 19.06.1990 that was the reason the lower court had not dispose of the application for condoning the delay.

¶11

Having heard learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record shows that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order dated 15.02.1992 passed by court below. Considering the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, prima facie case against opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of N.I.Act is made out. Court below has not exceeded its jurisdiction as propounded by law. Hence, revision is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed accordingly.

¶12

Criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed and judgment of Sessions Court is affirmed .

¶13

Stay order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

A copy of this order be communicated to the court below for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Vibha Singh

G.B. Laboratories Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.B. Laboratories Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu Abhishek Rajan Vs State of U.P.

Chaturbhuj Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Moti Lal @ Bibi Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sagar Singh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh and Another Vs State of U.P.