HARIRAM VENSIMAL BHARWANI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 108/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No. 207/1997. The second proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 111/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No. 211/1997. The third proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 110/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No. 210/1997. The fourth proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 113/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No. 213/ 1997 and the last proceeding against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 112/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No. 212/ 1997. All the cases were filed by respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. These private complaints were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and the order of dismissal was challenged in the Sessions Court by filing aforesaid criminal revision applications. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the orders of dismissal and has restored the matters. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also heard. Though respondent No. 2, original complainant, was served she did not appear.

(2.) THE orders made, copy of which is on the record, shows that initially process was issued in private complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As there was no process issued for offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, revision petitions were filed by the original complainant and those revision applications were allowed. Then in the year 1998 the process was issued for offence punishable under section 420, IPC also in all the private complaints. Though the matters were still described as summons cases, the cases were actually warrant cases. These complaints came to be dismissed due to absence of complainant on 19 -12 -2002 under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to order of the Judicial Magistrate made under section 256 of the Code it needs to be presumed that the accused is acquitted and so the revision was not tenable in Sessions Court. The learned counsel has placed reliance on following reported cases : -