JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The present petitioner, Deepak Thanwardas Balwani was prosecuted by respondent No. 2 Navabai Chhangomal Vasandani, in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay. The allegations made against him were with regard to offences punishable under sections 341, 397 and 506 (Part II) r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process and the complaint was registered as Case No. 91/S of 1982. The petitioner challenged the said order of issue of process against him by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 367 of 1983 in this Court and prayed for quashing the said proceedings. The said writ petition was on weekly board beginning from 30th January, 1984. It came up for hearing on 2nd February, 1984. On that day it was mentioned by Mr. N.D. Jaywant, learned junior of Mr. M.K. Joshi, and applied for date. If appears that initially 6th February, 1984 was suggested as the next date but that date was not convenient to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 Therefore, another date viz, 8th February, 1984 was suggested. But since that date was also not convenient, it being in the middle of the week, the writ petition was adjourned to 13th February, 1984, it seems that since 8th February, 1984 was one of the dates mentioned for adjournment before the writ petition was actually adjourned to 13th February, 1984, the Sheristedar of this Court inadvertently mentioned in the Roznama that the next date of hearing was 8th February, 1984 . Thus he made a mistake in not mentioning in the Roznama the correct date of hearing i.e. 13th February, 1984. The writ petition was thus called out for hearing on 8th February, 1984 when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This Court went through the record and dismissed the writ petition having come to a conclusion that the complaint did disclose a prima facie case for issuing process. The rule was accordingly discharged.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the disposal of the writ petition on 8th February, 1984 in this manner the petitioner filed the present review petition. Mr. Joshi on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his Advocates were under a bona fide belief that the matter was adjourned to 13th February, 1984 and accordingly on that day they attended the Court but only to find that it was disposed of on 8th February, 1984 under the circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, according to Mr. Joshi, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before deciding his case against him and as such it can be said that this Court acted in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence with out jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed by this Court on 8th February, 1984 should be recalled it being a nullity in the eyes of law, further submitted Mr. Joshi. He then urged that the averments made in the review petition that there was a genuine mistake as regards the correct date of hearing are not dispute in as much as respondent No. 2 did not file an affidavit in reply controverting the facts mentioned in the review petition. Mr. Gurasahani learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 was asked by the Court whether his client was interested in filling an affidavit in reply to controvert the facts mentioned in the review petition to which Mr. Gursahani answered in the negative. And the fact remains that no such affidavit has been filed by respondent No 2 in this respect Mr. Gursahani, in fairness, submitted that his learned junior had told him that the correct date of hearing was perhaps 13th February, 1984 and not 8th February, 1984, Thus Mr. Gursahni did not seriously challenge that there was a genuine mistake as to the correct date of hearing being 13th February, 1984. Therefore, the hearing of the review petition was commenced on the basis that the correct date of hearing of the original writ petition was 13th February, 1984 and not 8th February 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document