RAM LAL SAO Vs. MOHD. YASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an appropriate order calling upon the trial Court presided over by Sri D.K.Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat for disposal of Complaint Case No. 53 of 2005.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-petitioner had filed complaint Case No. 53 of 2005 before the A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat against the opposite party-Md. Yasin for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act stating therein that the opposite party-Md. Yasin had taken Rs. 1,05,000/- (rupees one lakh five thousand) as loan from him for treatment of members of his family and the money was given in presence of witnesses, to which an instrument of such transaction was also procured. The opposite party-Md. Yasin had assured him to return the entire amount after two years and on demand he delivered a cheque of Rs.1,05,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank on 8.9.2004. When the petitipner presented the cheque at the bank, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement "insufficient fund". Thereafter, he issued a notice for the return of the money which could not be paid and hence, the complaint.

(3.) It is evident from the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Trial Magistrate that the judgment in the complaint case was fixed on 1.9.2009 itself, but the Trial Magistrate did not deliver the judgment explaining that the complainant-petitioner had already filed an appeal against the judgment and order passed in Money Appeal No. 1 of 2007 and since the Money Appeal was pending in the superior Court, he did not record the judgment and post the matter on 30.10.2009. It is further evident from1 the order dated 6.1.2010 that since, the Second Appeal preferred against the Money Suit, being Money Appeal No. 1 of 2007 was pending before the High Court and there was no final result, he did not think it proper to pass any final order-judgment and he directed the parties to intimate him about the result of the Second Appeal arising out of the Money Suit, which was pending before this Court. No specific number of the Second Appeal has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 6.1.2010 recorded by the Trial Magistrate.