Mr.Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Mr.Hiren Babulal Adani And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/483/2024 Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Vs.
Mr. Hiren Babulal Adani and Another Ms. Rashi Sheth [through virtual mode] Mr. Pardeshia Munda .... for the petitioner Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondents October 03, 2024 [SR] Item No.6 This is a revisional application challenging an order dated 14 November 2023 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge at Port Blair in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2023.
The proceeding arises out of a conviction recorded against the private respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. By a final order and judgment dated 22 September 2023, the Learned Judge had disposed of CR Case No. 27 of 2020 by directing inter alia as follows:
"That the accused namely Hiren Babulal Adani is found guilty to the offence publishable U/S, 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is accordingly convicted as per section 255(2) OF Cr.P.C.
For the commission of the aforesaid offence, convict Hiren Babulal Adani is hereby sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven (07) months. The Convict is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs) only and the entire amount of said fine be given to the complainant namely Sri Prakash Chimanlal Sheth as compensation. The convict shall pay the said fine/compensation to the complainant within one month
from the date of this order and in default the convict is liable to suffer simple imprisonment for a further term of four (04) months. His bail bond stands forfeited. The convict is taken into judicial custody."
The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the mechanical and routine manner in which the impugned order has been passed without recording any reasons whatsoever. In passing the impugned order, Learned Court has granted a blanket stay on the ground that there was a law point involved in the application. However, there are no reasons given nor any elaboration of the alleged law point.
It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been inordinate delay in the filing of this application. There has also been no compliance with the provisions of the mandate of depositing 20% of the amount as a pre-condition to the filing of the above appeal. There are no reasons for granting an order of stay of this nature. In fact, there was no application for suspension of sentence which has been filed under section 389 of the Code by the accused.
Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 as surety had issued a cheque of Rs.28 lacs for purchase of a diamond for his brother against whom a separate complaint has been filed. Both the cheques has been dishonoured.
The matter had been heard on several occasions. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent had assured this Court at a prior hearing that they were ready and willing to make payment of the entire amount within a period of three months. Thereafter, in view of the claim
for interest, the respondent had agreed to take instructions. It is now submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that they are neither ready nor willing to even pay the principal leave alone the interest amount. The conduct of the private respondent to say the least is reprehensible.
It appears that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind and without affording any reason whatsoever. The procedural requirements, which the court was obliged to adhere to has not been followed. (R.Vijayan vs. Baby and another, 2012( 1) SCC 260 ).
In such circumstances, the impugned order of stay of the judgment and order dated 14 November 2023 stands vacated. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. With the above directions, WPA/483/2024 stands disposed of. As prayed for by the petitioner, the pending appeal is directed to be disposed of expeditiously by the Learned Sessions Judge.
( Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. )