ADESH PRAKASHCHAND JAIN (BORUDIYA) Vs. HARISH PUNAMCHAND UNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision application has been filed by the original accused challenging order dated 15-07-2019 passed below Exhibit-01 in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna for dismissal of his appeal in default.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the revision are that the present applicant-original accused faced trial in S.C.C. No.1501 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He was held guilty of committing the said offence and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.6,58,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month by order dated 17-07-2018. The said judgment and conviction was challenged by the present applicant in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2018 which was then pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna. By order dated 04-02-2019, the sentence was suspended subject to deposit of sum of Rs.1,31,600/- which was 20% of the fine amount awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna. It appears that thereafter within the time limit, that was prescribed for payment of fine amount and furnishing bail as directed by the trial Court as well as the fact that the appellant was absent since long, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna dismissed the appeal in default for want of prosecution on 15-07-2019 and the said order is challenged in this criminal revision application.

(3.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Bora for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for respondent No.1. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the appeal in default when once he had admitted the appeal. By placing reliance on the decision in Bani Singh and ors. Vs State of U.P. [AIR 1996 SC 2439], it was submitted that the learned Appellate Court ought to have proceeded to decide the appeal, as he could not have disposed of the appeal in default.