Allowed

Bhagwati Lal v. Navratan

Rajasthan HC31 Oct 2017CRLR/931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 138 NI Act trial, the Supreme Court was relied upon to hold that orders rejecting applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. being interlocutory are non-revisable. Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the revisional court's orders that had set aside the trial court's rejection, allowing the petitioner's revisions.

What did the court decide?

The revisions were allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.7.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in both cases were quashed and set aside.

Bhagwati Lal Vs Navratan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 932 / 2016

¶3

Bhagwati Lal S/o Shri Jagannath Nai, resident of Aakola P.S. Aakola District Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Navratan S/o Shri Gopi Lal Patwa, resident of Aakola P.S. Aakola District Chittorgarh

¶7

----Respondent Connected With

¶8

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 931 / 2016 Bhagwati Lal S/o Shri Jagannath Nai, resident of Aakola P.S. Aakola District Chittorgarh.

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Navratan S/o Shri Gopi Lal Patwa, resident of Aakola P.S. Aakola District Chittorgarh

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S.choudhary

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment / Order

¶16

Date of Order: 31/10/2017

¶17

By way of these revisions, the petitioner complainant has approached this Court for challenging two orders dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh in revisions preferred by the respondent accused whereby the Revisional Court set aside the separate orders dated 12.5.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan in criminal cases

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

No. 287/2013 and 286/2013.

¶20

The respondent herein is facing trial in two separate cases under Section 138 of the N.I.Act filed by the complainant Bhagwati Lal. He moved separate applications in both the cases for summoning the record of his bank account from the S.B.B.J. Aakola Branch claiming that the disputed cheque was not issued by him but was issued from the bank account of his namesake Ratan s/o Balu Ram. Thus, he prayed that the bank manager be summoned with complete bank account record in defence while exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The trial court after detailed appreciation of material available on record rejected the application observing that the accused himself gave the disputed cheques to the complainant with a written script in which it was mentioned that the accused was known by both the names i.e. Ratan and Navratan. The said orders passed by the trial court in both the cases were reversed by the Revisional Court and hence these two revisions.

¶21

Notice of both the revisions has been served on the respondent but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner and have gone through material available on record.

¶23

Learned counsel Mr. Choudhary placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC-153 and urged that the order passed by the Revisional Court allowing the revision preferred by the accused against the orders dated 12.5.2016

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

passed by trial court u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. were not maintainable because the trial court’s orders were interlocutory in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment. He thus urged that the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside.

¶26

Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced and after perusing Sethuraman’s judgment (supra) relied upon by Mr. Choudhary, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court, whilst considering this very controversy has clearly held that the orders passed by learned trial court refusing to call the document and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory orders and are not revisable. It has positively been held that revision against such order is barred by virtue of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

In view of the settled position of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court it is apparent that the Revisional Court i.e. learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh acted without jurisdiction while entertaining the revisions preferred by the accused against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the applications u/s. 311 Cr.P.C.

¶28

As a consequence, the impugned orders dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in both the cases are bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained.

¶29

Hence, these revisions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh in revision nos. 31/2016

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

and 32/2016 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

A copy of the order be placed in each file.

¶33

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

¶34

/sushil/

Bhagwati Lal v. Navratan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Lal v. Navratan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badridas Suthar Vs Babulal Sharma Bank Vale and Anr.

Hira Das Vs State and Anr.

Shiv Lal Vs State

Madan Lal Vs State and Ors.

Tribhuwan Vs State and Anr.

Himanshu Gadhvi Vs State and Anr.