LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-259

RAMANJIT SINGH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR NARUALA

Decided On March 18, 2019
RAMANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Ramesh Kumar Naruala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for setting-aside the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the revision petition filed by the respondent/complainant - Ramesh Kumar Narula was accepted and the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the trial Court dismissing the criminal complaint No.301 dated 09.04.2014 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in default of non-appearance was set-aside and the complaint was restored.

(2.) Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision before the Court of Sessions and the Additional Sessions Judge without issuing notice to the petitioner/respondent accepted the same while noticing the relevant facts that the complainant has given a bona fide reason for not depositing the publication charges as he was out of station and the trial Court has dismissed the complaint without providing him further opportunity and has passed the order in a haste. It was further observed that the trial Court instead of dismissing the case should have granted one more opportunity to do the needful and deposit the publication charges. The Revisional Court also relied upon certain judicial pronouncements to hold that the trial Court has not exercised the discretion in a judicial manner, when the complainant on earlier dates, was regularly appearing and restored the complaint on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Ludhiana.

(3.) In reply, counsel for the respondent has argued that at the stage, when the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance, the petitioner was not served, therefore, the Revisional Court was not required to issue notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Revisional Court has rightly held on merits that the trial Court without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the publication charges, in a haste, has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution though, the complainant was regularly appearing before the trial Court.