SATYA PROSAD MITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner was convicted in a case relating to an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Howrah. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah being Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2008 along with an application for condonation of delay of 85 days in preferring the appeal. However, before taking up for hearing the application for condonation of delay the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the payment of compensation. On the failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount of money, the appeal was dismissed, hence this criminal revision.

(2.) Now, having gone through the impugned order, I find on the date when the order of dismissal was passed a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground a criminal revision being C.R.R. No. 4008 of 2009 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court, where the petitioner challenged the direction passed in connection with the criminal appeal in question, by the Appellate Court for depositing the compensation amount. However, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay only on the ground that it does not appear from the letter addressed by the learned Advocate of the petitioner whether the said criminal revision was at all been admitted or not and nor there is any stay order. The Appellate Court was of the further opinion that since in terms of his earlier order no amount was deposited thereby the petitioner flouted the Court's order. It further appears from the ordering portion of the order that delay was condoned but appeal was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:

(3.) Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. None appeared on behalf of the complainant/opposite party. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court is already lying with the records.