Revision filed to set aside an appeal dismissal order where the appellant failed to appear. Court set aside the order, directing the lower trial court to restore the appeal and decide it on merits within three months.
Order dated 11.01.2022 in C.A.No.84 of 2019 set aside; lower court directed to restore appeal and dispose within three months.
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.
Crl.R.C.No.346 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.R.C.No.346 of 2022
Mani Chinathala ... Petitioner
Vs.
M.Sathyanathan ... Respondent
Prayer:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the judgment, conviction passed by the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepram District at Chengalpattu in C.A.No.84 of 2019 dated 11.01.2022 confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Alandur in C.C.No.68 of 2017 dated 09.10.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaikumar For Respondent : Mr.B.Ramesh
O R D E R
The criminal revision case has been filed seeking to set aside
the judgment, conviction passed by the learned Principal District and
1/4
Crl.R.C.No.346 of 2022
Sessions Judge of Kancheepram District at Chengalpattu in C.A.No.84 of 2019 dated 11.01.2022 confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Alandur in C.C.No.68 of 2017 dated 09.10.2019.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.68 of 2017. The respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.68 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Alandur and he filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner and after adjudication, the trial Court convicted the accused/ petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.45 Lakhs as compensation to the complainant within 30 days in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.84 of 2019 and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepram District at Chengalpattu vide order dated 11.01.2022 dismissed the said appeal. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this revision.
2/4
Crl.R.C.No.346 of 2022
5.In view of the consent view expressed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court, set aside the order dated 11.01.2022 passed in C.A.No.84 of 2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepram District at Chengalpattu. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepram
3/4
Crl.R.C.No.346 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri
District at Chengalpattu, shall restore C.A.No.84 of 2019 on its file and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law and after providing opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent, dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.This revision is allowed on the above terms.
24.06.2024
pri
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No
To
Crl.R.C.No.346 of 2022
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned appeal order dismissing the appeal due to non-appearance of the petitioner should be set aside and restored for disposal on merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mani Chinathala
M.Sathyanathan
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
