SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Cal) 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jay Sengupta, J.
Shajahan Gazi - Appellant
Versus
Susanta Bawali - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 893 of 2020
Decided On : 06-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Karabi Roy, Advocate

The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a stipulated period of time.

Headnote:

Expeditious Disposal - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, citing delays caused by the accused requesting adjournments.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that no prejudice would be caused by expeditious disposal and emphasized the statutory requirement for concluding such proceedings within a stipulated period of time.

Issues: Delay in the proceeding, accused's requests for adjournments, and the statutory requirement for concluding proceedings within a stipulated period of time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the proceeding and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

Final Decision: The revisional application seeking expeditious disposal was granted, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This is, in effect, an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The complainant/ petitioner initiated the present proceeding in October, 2018. Despite service of summons, the accused did not appear before the learned trial court and that is why a warrant of arrest had to be issued. Before the warrant could be executed he appeared and took bail. Thereafter, on several occasions the accused prayed for adjournments and the same were allowed. The proceeding has remained pending for no fault on the part of the present petitioner.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition.

4. No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction is passed for expeditious disposal of the impugned proceeding.

5. Although the proceeding has not remained pending for an inordinately long period of time, one has to remember the statutory requirement for concluding such proceeding within a stipulated period of time. Besides, on the last few occasions the accused prayed for adjournments.

6. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the learned trial court is requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

7. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top