Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 10 (CAL)

Samar Mondal v. State Of West Bengal

2020-01-03

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging the order dated 13.6.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas in Case No. C-719/2010 and renumbered as 1191/2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. For the dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 37,000/-, the petitioners were directed pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- each to the complainant and to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each. Due to cease work, no appeal could be preferred in time. As a result, the learned trial court issued a warrant of arrest against the present petitioners. However, the petitioners have already filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2019. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioners and have perused the revision petition. 4. It appears that the petitioners have finally been able to file an appeal before the learned Appellate Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing such appeal. However, the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioners as the petitioner was not represented before the learned trial court on the date fixed. 5. Be that as it may, in view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, I stay the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners for a period of six weeks from this date and direct the petitioners to appear before the learned trial court within such date and take appropriate steps. In such event, the learned trial court shall consider the prayer of the petitioners in accordance with law. 6. In the interest of justice, I also request the learned Appellate Court to consider the applications filed before it by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. 7. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.