Allowed

Namdeo Ramu Misal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC24 Feb 2014WP/7/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court allowed the plea of the accused challenging the refusal of the Magistrate to club three pending cheque-bounce cases for a joint trial. The Court held the Magistrate erred in denying the joint trial and directed expedited completion within nine months.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. The learned Magistrate was directed to expedite the trial and complete it preferably within six months, or in any case, within nine months.

Namdeo Ramu Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 7 of 2014

¶4

Namdeo Ramu Misal, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Khokarmoha, Taluka : Shirur (Kasar), District : Beed, Presently residing at : C/o. A.S. Rote, Near Parnerkar Maharaj temple, Bhagyanagar, Beed, .. Petitioner Taluka & District : Beed. (Original accused)

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra.

¶7

Mahadeo Lakshman Tandale, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service & Agriculture, .. Respondents R/o. Vanjarwadi, (No.2 - Original Taluka & District : Beed. complainant)

¶8

Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. P.N. Muley, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for the respondent no.2.

¶11

(2)

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶13

DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

Heard Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1 - State. Heard Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Mr. S.S. Thombre, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 - Original complainant.

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally.

¶17

The petitioner is the accused in three cases filed against him by the respondent no.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "complainant" ). All the three cases are in respect of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. All the said cases are pending before one and the same court i.e. 7th Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Beed. In all the cases, the affidavit of the complainant, in lieu of evidence in examination in chief, has been filed. However, in none of the cases, the cross examination has commenced. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "accused" ) is aggrieved by the order dated 24-10-2013, passed by the learned Magistrate, on an application (Exhibit 20) made by him in one of the said three cases i.e. S.C.C. No. 791/2012, refusing to club and try all the three cases together.

¶18

(3)

¶19

I have gone through the impugned order. The learned Magistrate understood the legal position stipulated by Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code" ], correctly. The Magistrate observed that the cases could be clubbed together and tried together in view of Section 219 of the Code. The Magistrate, in para 7 of his order, rightly observed that the said Section confers a discretion upon the Magistrate, and that, there was no bar to try the accused in one trial for the three offences for which three separate cases had been pending. However, inspite of this, the Magistrate rejected the application for a joint trial only on the ground that, plea of the accused had already been recorded, and that, the application for clubbing the cases together and to have a joint trial had been filed belatedly. The Magistrate observed that, Section 219 of the Code was an enabling provision, but not a mandatory one.

¶20

Undoubtedly, the legal position was understood by the Magistrate properly. It is true that, it is not obligatory for a Magistrate to try the accused in one trial even if the case would fall under the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 219 of the Code. However, the discretion exercised by the Magistrate, in that regard, does not seem to have been properly exercised. The consideration that, the application was made at a belated stage was irrelevant. Similarly, the filing of the affidavits of the respondent no.2, in lieu of evidence, was also not relevant in the context of the discretionary power of the Magistrate.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 has not been able

¶22

(4)

¶23

to, and does not attempt to show, how prejudice would be caused to the respondent no.2 by holding a joint trial in respect of all the three cases. On the contrary, it appears to me that, it would be convenient for the respondent no.2 also, to avoid facing repeated cross examinations after a gap of some period which would otherwise take place.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, however, submits that the learned Magistrate be directed to expedite the trial.

¶25

The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C" .

¶26

The learned Magistrate shall expedite the trial of the case and endeavour to complete the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, and in any case, within a period of nine months from such date.

¶27

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶28

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY ) JUDGE

¶29

bgp/CrWP7

Namdeo Ramu Misal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Ramu Misal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sachin Chandrakant Gandhi and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Irbaji Deorao Holkar

Shripad Janardan Phadke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Umakant Annasaheb Saindane/Thakur Vs Sangeeta Umakant Saindane/Thakur

Shri.Vasantrao Keshavrao Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Omkesh Laxmanrao Dahiphale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.