Petitioner challenged the appellate court's acquittal of the complainant's accused in a cheque dishonour case by filing a criminal revision. Following a maintainability objection, the revision was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate remedy.
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. Rev. No. 346 of 2020
Akil Khan @ Aqil Khan son of Md. Makki, aged about 53 years, resident of Kallu Chowk, Pugmil, P.O. and P.S Sadar, district Hazaribag … … Petitioner
… … Opposite Parties
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate : Mr. P.K. Pathak, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate : Mr. Atul Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP ---
08 /11.09.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This criminal revision has been filed for the following relief:
“That the present revision application is being filed by the petitioner for setting aside the judgment dated 9th December 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.14 of 2019 by Shri Yogesh Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge – VII, Hazaribag whereby and whereunder the said learned court has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the opposite party no.2 dated 22.1.2019 in Complaint Case No.1630 of 2017 / T.R. No.682 of 2019 by Shri Pradeep Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag and to confirm the judgment and order dated 22.1.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.1630 of 2017 / T.R. No.682 of 2019 by Shri Pradeep Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag.”
3. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised an objection by stating that the present revision is not maintainable as the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted by the appellate court. The learned counsel submits that the case arises out of offence relating to section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Cr. Rev. No.661 of 2022.
4. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. He submits that he may be permitted to seek remedy as per law. He has also submitted that the certified copies filed in the present case may be handed over to him upon being replaced by true copies.
Saurav
5. This Court finds that the present revision has been filed on 05.03.2020 and no defect regarding limitation has been pointed out by the office.
6. However, in view of the aforesaid submissions, the present revision is permitted to be withdrawn and liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take appropriate remedy as per law.
7. The office is directed to hand over the certified copies of the judgments which have been filed in the present case to the learned counsel for the petitioner after being replaced by true copies which are “certified to be true” by the counsel.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akil Khan @ Aqil Khan
The State of Jharkhand
Subhnath Kumar
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
