Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 225 (GAU)

Kshitish Ch. Karmakar v. Zahidul Hussain

2020-02-18

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The matter was heard on 13.02.2020 and the Court had dismissed the revision and it was made clear that a detail order would follow. At that time, none of the counsel for the parties had bothered to apprise the Court that the learned trial Court in its judgment and order dated 29.11.2004 in N.I. Case No. 22/2014, had directed the petitioner herein (accused in that case) to the cheque amount of Rs.10,5000/- (sic.) in double. If that figure is accepted as correct then it would be Rupees one lakh five thousand only. While preparing the detailed order of dismissal of revision, it has come to the notice of the Court that the cheque which was dishonoured was a sum of Rs.10,05,000/- (Rupees ten lakh five thousand only). Moreover, on the perusal of the records of the first appellate Court records, it is seen that the petitioner herein, who was the appellant had taken a plea that the liability against the cheque was Rs.10,05,000/-. Even in this revision petition, the stand of the petitioner herein is that the liability against the dishonoured cheque was Rs.10,05,000/-. Therefore, the Court is now faced with a dilemma that if the revision is dismissed, it would revive an order of payment of Rs.10,5000/- whereas the cheque amount is Rs.10,05,000/-. 3. Accordingly, instead of pronouncing/ delivering the judgment, this Court deemed it appropriate that the matter be listed under 'To be spoken to column'. Accordingly, the matter was last listed on 17.02.2020. However, the listing had escaped the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was again listed today. 4. While the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that the cheque amount is of Rs.10,05,000/-. He submits that the order containing the direction is erroneous as it related to payment to pay a sum of Rs.10,5000/- only, which was not the cheque amount. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date, he is unable to address the Court as to whether the order of the learned trial Court was erroneous or the stand taken before the first appellate Court or before this revisional Court that the liability of Rs.10,05,000/- is erroneous. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date, he is unable to address the Court as to whether the order of the learned trial Court was erroneous or the stand taken before the first appellate Court or before this revisional Court that the liability of Rs.10,05,000/- is erroneous. 5. Accordingly, as the cheque amount is Rs.10,05,000/- and order to make payment is for a sum of Rs.10,5000/-, this Court is inclined to recall the order dated 13.02.2020 of dismissal of the revision as the detail order was never dictated or signed by this Court. 6. In view of the order passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is inclined to invoke the provisions of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and to put the petitioner to notice as to why the order containing direction to pay the cheque amounting to Rs.10,5000/- in double as compensation to the respondent No. 1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. with default clause, should not be enhanced twice to the cheque amount of Rs.10,05,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to respond to this by filing affidavit, or otherwise. Accordingly, the matter stands restored to file and adjourned today. 7. List after 4(four) weeks, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.