BAYER CROP SCIENCE (I) LTD. Vs. MITTAL CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present criminal revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 29.09.2012, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.08.2010/31.08.2010, were set aside after accepting the Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2010 titled as M/s. Mittal Chemicals & another v. Bayer Crop Science (I) Ltd. Vide judgment dated 28.08.2010/31.08.2010, the respondents herein, were held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 8,75,000/-, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ilisar in Criminal Complaint No. 233-II-RBT/2003 titled as Bayer Crop Science (I) Ltd. v. M/s. Mittal Chemicals & another. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent/accused, on the allegation that for discharge of legally enforceable debt, the respondent/accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 8.75 lacs in favour of the petitioner/complainant, which bounced for insufficient funds. Even after receipt of the demand notice, the accused failed to make the payment and hence the complaint dated 01.12.2003 was filed. After service of the notice of the accusation, the complainant examined two witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the respondent/accused examined two witnesses in his defence. After trial, the Court was pleased to hold the accused guilty and convicted them for the offences under Section 138 of the Act vide judgment dated 28.08.2010. Further, the convict was awarded sentence of 3 months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 8.75 lacs and in default to undergo SI for a period of one month.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment of the learned appellate Court is against law and facts on the file. The learned appellate Court has legally erred in remanding the case back to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for denovo trial after setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. He further argued that the accused has failed to show any prejudice in recording the evidence and delivering the judgment by the two different presiding officers.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the remand order while citing Nitinbhai Sacvatiial Shah and Anr. v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr., 2011 AIR(SC) 3076.