S K ABDUR RAHIM Vs. AMAL KR BANERJEE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)By this revision, the accused petitioner has challenged order dated 22-6-94 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/260/91 u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.
(2.)The fact leading to this case is that upon a complaint of one Amal Kr. Banerjee against the accused petitioner for an offence u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, Complaint Case No. C-260/91 has been registered in the Court of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10 Court Calcutta. In course of the proceeding, the accused petitioner made an allegation by filing an objection that over the self-same incident, a police case is pending and the Ld. Magistrate by his order dated 11-12-91 in exercise of his power u/S. 210(1) of the Cr. P.C. stayed the proceeding, called for a report from the investigating authority and fixed 18-1-92 for submission of the report by the investigating authority in the police case. 18-1-92 was also fixed for further order. By the order dated 22-6-94, the Ld. Magistrate recorded that the Court received the police report. He directed the police report to be kept with the record and fixed 13-7-94 for plea of the accused. This order is the subject matter of challenge in revision before this Court at the instance of the petitioner u/S. 401/482 of the Cr. P.C.
(3.)Mr. Ghosal, contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the Ld. Magistrate, in disposing of the application of the accused-petitioner stayed the proceeding in the complaint case and directed submission of report by the investigating in the police case and fixed 18-1-92 for further order. But after receipt of the report, without disposing of the case as contemplated under sub-secs. (2) and (3) as Section 210, the Ld. Magistrate directed placement of the police report in the record and fixed the case for plea of the accused. No liberty was given to the accused-petitioner to make his submission before the Court and the order is not a reasoned order, rather the order is a non-speaking one. At one point of time, he also challenged the order dated 11-12-91 but subsequently, he submitted that he is not challenging that order. Appearing for the O. P. No. 1, the Ld. Advocate Mr. Jayanta Kr. Biswas appearing with Mr. H. B. Dubey contended that by order dated 11-12-91, the Ld. Magistrate not only called for the report from the investigating authority but also fixed 18-1-92 for further orders and as such by order dated 22-6-94, by way of further orders he directed placing of the police report and fixed the case for plea of the accused.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.