:1:

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL REVN.APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2006

REVN.APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2006

REVN.APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2006

Shri Rahul Ashok Kharat

... Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents.

Mr. Anil N. Bugde, for the Applicant.

Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State.

Mr. A.S. Dubey for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J.

: A.S. OKA, J.

: A.S. OKA, J.

DATE

DATE

DATE : 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2006.

: 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2006.

: 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2006.

P.C.

P.C.

P.C. : :

:

1. Rule. Advocate appearing for the Respondents waives

service. Taken up for hearing forthwith.

2.

This

Criminal

Revision

Application

is

filed

by

the

Applicant

who

is

an

accused

in

a

complaint

filed

under

Section

138

of

the

Negotiable

Instruments

Act,

1881

(hereinafter

referred

to

of

the

said

Act).

The

second

Respondent

is

the

complainant.

The

Applicant

was

convicted

by

the

learned

Metropolitan

Magistrate

by

order

dated

8th

July

2005.

The

Applicant

was

directed

to

undergo

simple

imprisonment

for

one

year

and

to

pay

fine

of

Rs.5,000/-

and

in

default

to

suffer

simple

imprisonment

of

6

months.

The

Applicant

was

directed

to

pay

compensation

to

the

second

Respondent

in

the

sum

of

Rs.2,25,000/-

and

in

default

to

suffer

simple

imprisonment

for

9

months.

The

Applicant

preferred

an

Appeal

before

the Sessions Court which has been dismissed by order dated

6th December 2005.

:2:

3.

The

learned

Advocate

for

the

Applicant

submitted

that

the

Appeal

has

been

disposed

of

without

considering

the

submissions

made

before

the

learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge

and

without

recording

any

proper

findings.

He

also

invited

my

attention

to

the

operative

part

of

the

order

passed

by

the

learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge

and

submitted

that

the

impugned

Judgment

and

Order

shows

non

application

of

mind.

The

learned

Advocate

for

the

second

Respondent

supported

the

impugned

Judgment

and

Order.

He

submitted

that

while

confirming

the

order

of

conviction,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the

merit of the case and no inteference was called for.

4.

I

have

considered

the

submissions.

The

Appeal

preferred

by

the

Applicant

before

the

learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge

was

an

appeal

against

order

of

sentence

and

conviction.

While

dealing

with

the

said

Appeal,

the

Appellate

Court

was

expected

to

consider

and

appreciate

the

oral

and

documentary

evidence

on

record.

The

Appellate

Court

was

also

expected

to

deal

with

submissions

made

on

behalf

of

the

Appellant

and

to

record

findings

thereon.

However,

I

find

that

the

substantive

appeal

against

order

of

conviction

has

been

decided

by

the

learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge

in

a

very

cryptic

manner.

In

the

cryptic

order

which

is

passed

by

the

learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge,

there

is

no

reference

to oral evidence on record. The operative part of the

order reads thus :-

:3:

"Appeal

is

without

merits.

However,

considering

the

nature

of

the

circumstances

I

permit

the

appellant

to

pay