Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ordjud
Ordjud
Ordjud
// VERSUS //
2. Shri I.S.Gazi,
Aged 30 yrs., Occ. Advocate,
r/o. Dr. Ambedkar Ward,
c/o. Khan Baba, Pandharkawada,
Tq. Kelapur, Distt. Yavatmal. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. P.N.Mehta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Mr. F.T.Mirza, Adv. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A.I.Sheikh, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Coram: A.P.BHANGALE, J.
Date : 01/07/2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Adv. for the Petitioner, Mr.F.T.Mirza, Adv. for Respondent No.1 and
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner
has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order
Complaint Case u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of
for one month. The amount of fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid
of Criminal Procedure.
drawn upon the Yavatmal Zilla Madyavarti Bank Ltd. Yavatmal. The said
Thus, the complaint was filed. During the complaint proceedings, the
not entered into any transaction with the complainant and he did not
the cheque was issued by way of security, even though he was not liable
upon on behalf of the defence, the learned trial Magistrate, after hearing
the case of the petitioner/accused in the trial Court and convicted him of
and order passed by the trial Magistrate by filing Criminal Appeal No.21 of
within four weeks. It also appears that the Court was informed that the
on the ground that the appellant is intending to sell his agricultural land.
petition during pendency of this petition) cheated him and threatened him
compromise between the complainant and the accused and prayed for
petitioner on the ground that the complainant gave threat to kill him if
averred that the cheque was obtained by the complainant because the
Adv. and during conversation with the petitioner and his Advocate in June,
complainant.
as also the nature of defence already put forth and sought to be put forth
Sessions Court, Pandharkawada, the petitioner had relied upon the ruling
Gujrat and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 3114 and observed that
Supreme Court. However considering the matter before it, the learned
was before the Supreme Court. Meaning thereby, that entirely a new
appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did peruse the
record it would run afoul to the very purpose and intent of enacting
provision of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.” The learned Appellate Judge also
noted by the learned Appellate Judge, he concluded that they were not
sufficient to invoke the powers u/s. 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. One cannot dispute that the object of Section 391 is to sub-
serve the ends of justice and to get at the truth and power u/s. 391 can
accused. Power u/s. 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the
Appellate Court to ensure that justice is done and correct and proper
over the proposition that the Appellate Court does have power to take
the case.
12. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in this regard also made
Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and anr. reported in AIR 1987
in AIR 2001 SC 2120 and Anil Sharma and others vs. State of
the same. It is only then the Appellate Court could either record such
accepted, as, it may allow either of the parties to fill up the lacunas or
from the Appellate Court during the period from 24.12.2008 to 19.1.2011
various Advocates during the various stages of the proceedings. While the
no.2 herein) when extension was sought from the Appellate Court to
battery of lawyers to prosecute the appeal. The learned Advocate for the
had issued cheque in question it was open for the accused to lead
with the help of his Advocate so as to fill up the lacuna or to defeat the
the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Sessions Court was nothing but an
in the impugned order nor it can be said that the Appellate Court has
Sheikh and another (cited supra), it is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex
Procedure and noted that the need to give finalty to trial in Criminal
to make the accused to undergo trial once over which has the effect of
the need for a just decision and it cannot be used for filling up a lacuna.
Thus, if the appellate Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of
Section 391 as an exception to the ordinary rule, then it can exercise the
power. In the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (cited supra), the Apex
during the trial. Therefore, the power u/s. 391 was felt necessary. Even
the trial was directed to be conducted outside the state. The Apex Court
directed for re-trial and even trial was directed to be conducted out of the
the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the conduct
appeal, the learned Appellate Judge has rightly exercised the discretion to
Instruments Act, this Court has held that no party shall be entitled to
thus :
17. In Abdul Latif and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported
in AIR 1978 SC 472, the Apex Court refused to interfere under Article
136 of the Constitution of India and held that the finding of the High Court
that the evidence of any witness is not necessary for a just decision of the
case is a finding of fact and unless there is some substantial error in the
judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court would not interfere.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking into the
JUDGE
jaiswal