PRATISH Vs. SATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jaltare, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Khan, learned A.P.P. for no applicant no.1 and Mr. Choube, learned counsel for non applicant no.2.

(2.) Non applicant no.2 filed four different complaints in the Court of learned Magistrate since four different cheques given by the present applicant in his favour were not honoured by the banker of the present applicant. After issuance of summons in these four complaints, applicant appeared and he was released on bail. The trial proceeded. The evidence on behalf of complainant in all four cases was completed. Apart from complaisant, the complainant has also examined witnesses to support his case. Statement of the applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, after recording evidence of three witnesses when the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the applicant, the applicant did not remain present before the Court. This has occurred in the year 2009. Thereafter, the applicant was not appearing.

(3.) According to learned counsel for complainant, one day complainant noticed presence of applicant in Nagpur city. Therefore, he moved an application for issuance of non bailable warrant against applicant and in execution of said warrant, applicant was arrested and produced in the Court of learned Magistrate before whom the application for bail was moved. However, said was rejected. Consequently, applicant filed four different revisions before the revisional Court. Those revisions were decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 09.08.2019 by a common order and directed the learned Magistrate to decide the complaint case within a period of 15 days.