Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi of the Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge in which he had reversed the decision of the deposition of 10% of the cheque amount by the Magistrate.
The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent had dishonoured a cheque punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner later prayed to the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay 20% of the amount with respect to the provisions of under Section 143-A of the NI Act. The Magistrate after hearing ordered for 10% of the original amount. Upon challenging the order in front of the Sessions Court, the Sessions judge reversed the order. Hence the petitioner now aggrieved moved the HC. He contended that since it was an interlocutory order, the revision itself was barred under Section 397(2) CrPC.
The Hc noted that the petitioner filed the complaint before the commencement of Section 143-A. in the case GJ Raja v. Tejaraj Surana 2019 SCC SC 989, the court had held that the particular section has no retrospective effect. Hence the complainant could not avail the remedy stated in the aforementioned section. The HC held that “Magistrate applied that provision of law which was not all applicable to the case in hand before him, therefore, definitely it had affected the right of the accused. Consequently, it cannot be said that, the order which was passed by the learned Magistrate was purely “interlocutory order” as contemplated under Section 397(2) CrPC.” Hence the Sessions Judge was justified in reversing the order given originally by the Magistrate in accordance with the powers granted to him under Section 397(1) of the CrPC. Saying so, the instant petition was dismissed.
Hitendra v. Shankar, WP (Crl.) No. 1848 of 2019
86540
103860
630
114
59824