Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 155 (CAL)

Sona Vets Private Limited v. Unknown

2018-01-19

MD.MUMTAZ KHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. Let the Affidavit-of-Service filed in court today be kept on the record. None appears for the opposite party. 2. The instant revisional application is directed against the order dated September 30, 2013 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Session Court, Bichar Bhabhan, Kolkata in Criminal Revision No.132 of 2013. By the impugned order, the learned Chief Judge affirmed the order dated April 20, 2012 passed by the learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in Case No. C/14653 of 2010 in dismissing the petition of complainant. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that due to absence of the learned advocate appearing for the complainant, the petition of complaint was dismissed and that for the fault on the part of the learned advocate, litigant should not suffer. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge while disposing the criminal revision did not consider the above aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order. According to him another chance be given to the complainant to proceed with the complaint which relates to offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for bouncing of a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,23,606/-. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment and order. 5. Admittedly, the petition of complaint was lodged before the court below in the year 2010 and the same proceeded for enquiry under section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 Since the year 2010, the said complaint remained pending for enquiry for about two years and even after such long period complainant failed to examine even himself or any witness inspite of repeated opportunity given to him and even did not bother to appear on several occasions for which he was directed to show cause but to no effect. Thereafter, on April 22, 2012 when the matter was fixed for inquiry and submission of show-cause, on that date also complainant failed to turn up and even no show-cause was filed and, as such, the learned court finding no other alternative dismissed the complaint. 6. Thereafter, on April 22, 2012 when the matter was fixed for inquiry and submission of show-cause, on that date also complainant failed to turn up and even no show-cause was filed and, as such, the learned court finding no other alternative dismissed the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the same, petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Chief Judge, City Session Court, Bichar Bhabhan, Kolkata and the learned Sessions Judge taking into account the entire circumstances including the period of pendency of the complaint for enquiry, failure on the part of the complainant to examine any witness and the duration of absence of the complainant, came to the finding that the trial court gave enough opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence under section 200 CrPC, 1973 but he did not avail the same, nor filed any show-cause and accordingly dismissed the same. 7. In course of hearing before this court also nothing is produced to show that complainant was all along ready and there was no fault on his part in dragging the case for such long period. One can not be absolved from his responsibility without satisfying the court what prevented him in not examining himself or any single witness even after expiry of about two years by merely putting the blame on the counsel. Learned Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the LCR and on being satisfied that enough opportunities were given to the complainant and it was the complainant who was at fault and accordingly dismissed the revision. I find no illegality or irregularity in the same which requires any interference from this court. Moreover, this is the second revision preferred by the petitioner assailing the impugned order which is not permissible under the law. 8. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.