IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
Manish Pitale, J.
Bank Of India, Rep. By Its Poa, Salvador Jessie Fijardo - Appellant
Versus
Gautam R. Gaikwad - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2021
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Leave to Appeal - Dismissal of Complaint
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao, due to absence of the complainant and their advocate when the matter was called out.
Finding of the Court:
The Court granted leave to appeal, considering the reasonable explanation for the absence of the complainant and their advocate, and in the interest of justice.
Issues: Dismissal of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without consideration of merits due to absence of complainant and advocate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the reasonable explanation for the absence of the complainant and their advocate, and granted leave to appeal in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The applicant was granted leave to appeal against the dismissal of their complaint.
JUDGMENT
Manish Pitale, J. - The applicant before this Court is the original complainant who has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 21/01/2020 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao, whereby a complaint has been dismissed on the ground that neither the complainant nor the Advocate for the complainant was present when the matter was called out.
2. Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the present case was a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, for the reason that the complaint of the applicant filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood dismissed without any consideration of the merits of the matter.
3. It was submitted that in the present case a perusal of the Roznama of the aforesaid Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate would show that, at worst, there was only a single default on the part of the applicant (original complainant) and his Advocate. It was further submitted that the Advocate had filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which none could remain present on behalf of the applicant on the date when the order has passed dismissing the complaint.
4. This Court has perused the Roznama as well as the Affidavit filed by the concerned Advocate. There is reasonable explanation placed on record as to why none could remain present on the date when the complaint was dismissed.
5. Although the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the present application and it is contended that the applicant does not deserve any indulgence from this Court, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed.
6. The applicant is granted leave to appeal against the order dated 21/01/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Margao dismissing the complaint of the applicant.
7. The application stands disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.