IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

C.R.R. 815 of 2024

Gopal Kumar Agarwal

Versus

Sk. Abdul Hasera

For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Adv. Ms. Rajashree Tah, Adv.

Ms. Aishwarya Datta, Adv.

Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Sadia Parveen, Adv.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amarendra Chakroborti, Adv.

Mr. Tanmoy Chatterjee, Adv.

Heard on : 24-11-2025 Judgment on : 05-12-2025

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 24th January, 2024 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2022 arising out of order dated September 12, 2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Purba Bardhaman in connection with C.R. Case No. 221 of 2016 initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘N.I. Act’) thereby dismissed the application and affirming the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate.

2. By the order dated 12.09.2022, the Learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner to re-hear the application filed by the opposite party/complainant for condonation of delay in filing the complaint case since the delay was condoned without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party filed a complaint case, being C.R. Case No. 221 of 2016, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the petitioner herein, along with an application for condonation of delay in filing complaint case, before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the case was transferred to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Burdwan, for trial and its disposal.

4. On 3rd September, 2016, the Learned Judicial Magistrate condoned the delay of 12 days without serving the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act upon the petitioner/accused and without hearing the petitioner/accused.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that during business transactions, the petitioner submitted a cheque of Rs. 65,00,000/- to one Subhas Chandra Banik on 31.12.2015. Thereafter, Subhas Chandra Banik handed over the said cheque to the opposite party/complainant. On 11.01.2016, the complainant deposited the said cheque into his bank account at Andhra Bank, Burdwan Branch; however, on 13.01.2016, the bank authority returned the said cheque with the endorsement ‘stopped payment’.

6. After condoning the delay, cognizance was taken and a summon was issued to the petitioner/accused person. After receiving the summon, the petitioner surrendered before the Court below, and was granted bail.

7. On 17.05.2022, the petitioner filed an application for a de novo hearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

However, on 12.09.2022, the Learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner to re-hear the application filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the complainant after hearing the Petitioner.

8. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, challenged the impugned order dated

12.09.2022, by filing a Revisional application before the Learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman, and the same was registered as Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2022. However, after hearing the parties, the same was dismissed.

9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24th January, 2024, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman, the petitioner filed the instant application.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

10. It is the case of the petitioner that the Learned Trial Court erred in condoning the delay ex parte, contrary to the principle of natural justice. It is essential for the Court to afford an op