MADHAVJI JAICAM KOTAK Vs. KANTILAL AMARCHAND LAKHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision, the petitioner (original complainant ) has impugned the judgment and order dated 12.6.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, in criminal Appeal No.92 of 1989 setting aside the judgment and order dated 4th August 1989 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri convicting and sentencing respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under sections 630(a)(a) of the Companies Act and section 408 of the Indian Penal Code ad acquitting him on the said counts.

(2.) ALTHOUGH on a large number of occasions this revision has been adjourned neither counsel for the petitioner nor for respondent no.1 were present in the Court when the case was called out in the first round. The case has been called out again and still they are not present. Since the revision pertains to the year 1990 I am not inclined to adjourn it.

(3.) IN the instant case when the impugned order of acquittal is examined on the yard stick for interference set out by the Supreme Court in the said decision it becomes crystal clear that it warrants no interference. The Appellate court in a well reasoned judgment has given elaborate reasons for recording the same. The learned appellate judge has profusely referred to evidence which shows that the defence of respondent no.1 that a landlord tenant relationship was subsisting and he was occupying the premises as a tenant appears to be probable. He has also mentioned that respondent no.1 has filed a civil suit to claim tenancy rights in Small Causes Court and consequently in view of the ratio laid down in a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Damodardas Jain Vs,. Krishna Charan Chakraborti and anr (1985 (1) Bom. C.R. 479), the disputes should be properly decided by a Civil Court.