SUSANTA DEY versus BABLI MAJUMDAR & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 28-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1065
SUSANTA DEY
v.
BABLI MAJUMDAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.2103 of 2008)
MARCH 28, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Revision:
Jurisdiction of High Court – Cheque bouncing matter wherein
appellant held guilty, however in appeal, the appellate court
remanded the case to the Magistrate for giving opportunity to the
parties to adduce evidence – Revision thereagainst by complainant
wherein the High Court set aside the order of the appellate court
and passed order of conviction – Justification of – Held: High Court
committed jurisdictional error in allowing the revision – Question
before the High Court was whether the remand order of the appellate
court was legal or not – Instead of deciding the said question, the
High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits
and while allowing the complaint, sentenced the appellant which
was not legally permissible – Furthermore, the appellate court was
not justified in remanding the case to the magistrate – There was
enough material before the appellate court to decide the appeal on
merits – Thus, the order passed by the High Court and the appellate
court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not justified in allowing
the revision filed by respondent No.1 and awarding sentence to
the appellant and compensation to respondent No.1. The only
question before the High Court in the revision filed by respondent
No.1(complainant) was as to whether the appellate court was
justified in remanding the case to the Judicial Magistrate for
giving them an opportunity to adduce evidence. In other words,
the question before the High Court was whether the remand order
of the appellate court was legal or not. Instead of deciding the
said question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1065
1065
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1066                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
itself on its merits and while allowing the complaint, sentenced
the appellant (accused) with simple imprisonment for 2 months
along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to
respondent No.1 (complainant). It was, not legally permissible.
If the High Court had examined the issue of remand and held the
same to be legal, it could have directed the Magistrate to decide
the complaint in terms of the directions given by the appellate
court. However, if the remand had been held illegal, the High
Court was under a legal obligation to remand the case to the
appellate court to decide the appeal afresh on merits with a view
to decide as to whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing
the complaint and awarding sentence. The reason being that the
appellate court once decided to remand the case to the Magistrate
did not go into the merits of the case. Thus, the High Court
committed jurisdictional error in allowing the revision filed by
respondent No.1. [Paras 10-14][1068-C-H]
1.2 The appellate court erred in remanding the case to the
Magistrate. There was neither any need and nor any occasion to
remand the case to the Magistrate. There was enough
material before the appellate court on the basis of which the appeal
on merits could have been decided one way or the other
instead of remanding the case to the Magistrate for deciding it
afresh. The impugned order and the order of the appellate court
are set aside. The case is remanded to the appellate court to
decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
[Paras 15, 17, 18, 19][1069-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2103 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High Court
of  Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 3048 of 2005.
Vijay Kumar, Ms. Aparna Jha, Advs. for the Appellant.
Pijush K. Roy, Ms. Kakali Roy, Sunil Kumar Verma, Avishkar
Singhvi, Suhaan Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nipun Katyal, Rahul Arya
(for M/S. PLR Chambers and Co.), Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1067
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 11.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal
Revision No.3048 of 2005 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal
revision filed by respondent No.1 herein and while setting aside the order
of the Appellate Court, awarded simple imprisonment for two months to
the appellant herein and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by way
of compensation to respondent No.1.
2. The appeal inv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.