Partly allowed

Sanjay Kr Kedia v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Calcutta HC11 Feb 2022CRR/521/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court criminal revisional application challenged a bar on limitation preventing the petitioner from addressing merits. The court set aside the impugned order, allowed withdrawal of deposited cheque amount by the complainant, and disposed of connected applications, declaring the revision partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order barring merits; direct release of Rs.3,95,000 deposit to complainant subject to final outcome; dispose of connected applications.

Sanjay Kr Kedia Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

11.02.2022

¶2

Item No.6 Ct.No.34 dc.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶4

C.R.R. 521 of 2016

¶5

with

¶6

CRAN 1 of 2021 with CRAN 2 of 2021 (Via Video Conference)

¶7

Sanjay Kumar Kedia versus

¶8

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶9

In Re : An Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶10

Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Mr. Daanish Haque, Mr. A. Awasthi, Mr. Sharequl Haque, Mr. Abdul Zahid, Mr. Amitabrata Hait … For the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Diprav Deb, Mr. Tapas Saha, Mr. Sourav Mondal, Mr. Debdatta Saha … For the Opposite Party No.2.

¶12

The subject matter of this revisional application relates to judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2013 arising out of the judgment and order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8^th Court, Calcutta in connection with Case No. C/23553/2007.

¶13

By the judgment and order dated 30.07.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8^th Court, Calcutta was pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer T.R.C. and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- to

¶14

¶15

the complainant within one month from the date of passing of the said order.

¶16

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which was time barred and accordingly, the said revisional application was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶17

The said judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2013 reflects that the learned court without addressing the issues of the legality or illegality of the judgment, so passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the complaint case, dismissed the revisional application for being barred on the point of limitation thereby rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. A final judgment and order of conviction and sentence has serious ramifications. As such, the courts should ordinarily not bar the accused or the petitioner from addressing the issues on merits. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2013 is hereby set aside.

¶18

At the time of admission of this revisional application, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.02.2020 was pleased to direct as follows :

¶19

“ Subject to the deposit of Rs.3.95 lakhs i.e., the amount of the cheque by the petitioner, without prejudice, before the learned

¶20

¶21

trial court within three weeks from this date, the operation of the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed till six weeks from this date. The complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw the said sum, but such payment shall be subject to the final decision in this revision .”

¶22

In view of the liberty granted to the complainant/opposite party no.2 to withdraw such amount during the pendency of this revisional application, I am of the opinion that the order dated 05.03.2020, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8^th Court, Calcutta, refusing such prayer of the complainant/opposite party no.2 was not in consonance with the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2020.

¶23

The learned Magistrate is directed to release the amount of Rs.3,95,000/- (rupees three lakh ninety five thousand) so deposited in connection with the complaint case being C/23553/2007 to the complainant/opposite party no.2 on usual undertaking. The said withdrawal would obviously be subject to the final outcome of Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2013.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the revisional application being CRR 521 of 2016 is partly allowed.

¶25

Interim order would be applicable, as directed above. All pending connected applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.

¶26

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶27

¶28

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶29

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Sanjay Kr Kedia v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kr Kedia v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

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

Munmun Ghosh & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Piyali Banerjee Vs Kalyani Banerjee

Kangaleswar Mondal & Ors. Vs Paban Sardar & Anr.

Sanjay Kr Kedia Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Sanjay Kr Kedia Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

M.George Frahor and Ors. Vs Nupur Mukherjee and Anr.