Revision:
Jurisdiction of High Court – Cheque bouncing matter wherein appellant held guilty, however in appeal, the appellate court remanded the case to the Magistrate for giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence – Revision thereagainst by complainant wherein the High Court set aside the order of the appellate court and passed order of conviction – Justification of – Held: High Court committed jurisdictional error in allowing the revision – Question before the High Court was whether the remand order of the appellate court was legal or not – Instead of deciding the said question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits and while allowing the complaint, sentenced the appellant which was not legally permissible – Furthermore, the appellate court was not justified in remanding the case to the magistrate – There was enough material before the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits – Thus, the order passed by the High Court and the appellate court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not justified in allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1 and awarding sentence to the appellant and compensation to respondent No.1. The only question before the High Court in the revision filed by respondent No.1(complainant) was as to whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the case to the Judicial Magistrate for giving them an opportunity to adduce evidence. In other words, the question before the High Court was whether the remand order of the appellate court was legal or not. Instead of deciding the said question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits and while allowing the complaint, sentenced the appellant (accused) with simple imprisonment for 2 months along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to respondent No.1 (complainant). It was, not legally permissible. If the High Court had examined the issue of remand and held the same to be legal, it could have directed the Magistrate to decide the complaint in terms of the directions given by the appellate court. However, if the remand had been held illegal, the High Court was under a legal obligation to remand the case to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh on merits with a view to decide as to whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing the complaint and awarding sentence. The reason being that the appellate court once decided to remand the case to the Magistrate did not go into the merits of the case. Thus, the High Court committed jurisdictional error in allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1. [Paras 10-14][1068-C-H]
1.2 The appellate court erred in remanding the case to the Magistrate. There was neither any need and nor any occasion to remand the case to the Magistrate. There was enough material before the appellate court on the basis of which the appeal on merits could have been decided one way or the other instead of remanding the case to the Magistrate for deciding it afresh. The impugned order and the order of the appellate court are set aside. The case is remanded to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 15, 17, 18, 19][1069-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.