Ashim Kumar Roy, J.@mdashThe subject-matter of challenge in this criminal revision being CRR No. 865 of 2010 is an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta, rejecting the Petitioners'' application u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with a case instituted on a complaint relating to an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas in CRR 2352 of 2010 subject-matter of challenge is an order whereby the learned Court below issued warrant of arrest against him.
2. Now, in the above background, it would quite expedient for this to take up for hearing both the aforesaid criminal revisions together and dispose of the same by a common judgment.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners'' vehemently urge, the Court below was not at all justified in rejecting the Petitioners'' application u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, merely on the ground that the Petitioners sought for such exemption, without at all appearing in Court, although the case in connection with which such application was moved instituted on a complaint relates to a case triable as a summons case. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate should not have issued warrant of arrest against the Petitioners when a criminal revision was still pending before this Hon''ble High Court against an order passed by that Court rejecting the Petitioners'' application u/s 205 of the Code.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party strongly disputed the contention of the learned Counsel of the Petitioners and submitted the learned Magistrate rejected the Petitioners'' application u/s 205 of the Code on merit and not on the ground he moved such application without first appearing in Court. However, the learned Counsel of the opposite party further submitted that the Petitioners may be permitted to renew their prayer for exemption after appearing in Court.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners as well as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the State.
6. Now, having gone through the order impugned whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the Petitioners'' application u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find that such order was passed on merit and not because the Petitioners without appearing in Court moved such application. In this connection relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below;
Be that as it may, if on such feeble grounds as has been mentioned by the Petitioners/accuseds, the petitions u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure are allowed, it would send a wrong signal to the complainant, who has instituted the instant proceeding with some specific allegations, against the accused persons and the public at large would loose faith in the system of administration of justice.
Without going into further details, in the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court is of the view, that, the petitions u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioners/accuseds fail to stand on their own feet and therefore deserve to be dismissed.
7. Be that as it may, considering the respective submissions of the parties, I set aside the order whereby the Petitioners'' application u/s 205 of the Code was rejected by the Court below and direct that the impugned order of warrant of arrest shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks. It is further directed within the aforesaid period of two weeks, if the Petitioners surrender in the Court below and pray for bail their such prayer shall be considered in accordance with law. Simultaneously, with their surrender in Court, if the Petitioners move any application u/s 205 of the Code afresh the learned Court below shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties within 10 days from the date of filing.
8. Both the aforesaid criminal revisional applications as well as the CRAN 1626 of 2010 and CRAN 1425 of 2010 accordingly stand disposed of.
9. It appears that the case in question relates to an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was instituted on a complaint filed in Court in the year 2008, but the trial has not yet been concluded and pending for about two years, thus the learned Court below is directed to conclude the trial of the case strictly in terms of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of section 143 of the said Act.
Criminal Section is directed to supply the urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for.
