CASE TITLE:
Prasanta Bhatta v. Abdul Sk
DATE OF ORDER:
3 February, 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
SUBJECT
The learned High Court of Calcutta in the present case held that a mistake on the part of an advocate representing a party beyond his/ her knowledge should not act as a prejudice against his/her rights and contentions.
IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Section 362- provides that the Court shall not alter any judgement after it has been has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, alter or review it unless it is done to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- Six account payee cheques were drawn by the respondent on the appellant bank.
- On their deposition for enchantment, all of them were dishonored with the remark ‘Insufficient Funds’.
- The bank issued a demand notice on the respondent for payment, the notice was not complied with by the respondent.
- Aggrieved by this act, the complainant bank moved the Court u/s 138 if the Negotiable Instrument Act.
- The Trial Court issued process against the respondent. However, by its order dated 30.05.2007, the Court acquitted the respondent u/s 256 CrPC.
- The Trial Court ordered acquittal as it was submitted by the lawyer representing the complainant that matter has been settled and complainant will not taken any step in this case.
- Subsequently, a petition was filed by the complainant bank for recalling the order of acquittal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on his absence from the Court due to illness, his junior inadvertently submitted of a settlement between the parties.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order after its pronouncement and signing the same could not be recalled in view of the provision enunciated in Section 362 Cr. P.C.
LEGAL ISSUE
Whether the order of the Trial Court should be recalled or not?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- While adjudicating upon the matter, the Court observed that the petition for recalling of the acquittal was filed immediately after passing of that order.
- The Court opined that the complainant bank should not be prejudiced because of an act on the part of the advocate.
CONCLUSION
The light of the above observations made, the learned Court concluded that the the impugned order acquitting the respondent shall be set aside. The Court further directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter as quickly as possible.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
