Revision challenging appellate acquittal under Section 138 NI Act; petitioner sought withdrawal on maintainability grounds and was permitted to withdraw with liberty to pursue remedies as per law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1456 of 2019
Pradeep Kumar Mandal aged about 44 years, son of R.P. Mandal, Rasendra Prasad, resident of Birsa Nagar, Zone No. 6, Hulung, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Birsa Nagar, District-East Singhbhum
… … Petitioner
… … Opp. Parties ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
05 /18.09.2024 Counsel for the petitioner and State are present.
2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2014 and Cr. Appeal No. 30 of 2015 whereby the opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted after setting aside the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case being C/1 Case No. 416 of 2011.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the judgment of conviction two appeals were filed. One was for enhancement of sentence by the complainant which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015 and the other was filed by the convict being Cr. Appeal No. 180 of 2014. He submits that the matter relates to offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted, the present revision has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that present revision against the acquittal by appellate court is not maintainable.
5. He submits that since the revision is not maintainable against the order of acquittal passed by the appellate court, he seeks
Binit
permission to withdraw this criminal revision and submits that right may be reserved with the petitioner to take appropriate remedy as per law. He also submits that the certified copies which have been filed along with the revision may be returned to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy as per law. The certified copies filed along with this petition be returned to the petitioner upon being replaced by the certified to be true copy of the same.
7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Mandal
The State of Jharkhand
Rameshwar Machhua
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
