Case title:
Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Order:
11th August, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar, and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Parties:
Petitioner: Taj Mohammad
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
SUBJECT
The appellant in this case filed the revision petition against the judgement of his conviction passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Section 138
The Constitution of India, 1949
- Article 141
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 385
- Section 386
BRIEF FACTS
- Taj Mohammad, the appellant, is challenging an Allahabad High Court of Judicature decision. In Complaint Case No. 1808 of 2016, he was found guilty in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2016 affirmed his conviction and sentence.
- He filed a revision petition in opposition to the appeal's ruling, which produced the contested ruling.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the order of the conviction of the accused passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is non-reasoned, violated the principles of fair treatment and Article 141 of the Constitution of India or not ?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant claimed that the unjustified ruling was against fair treatment laws and Article 141 of the Indian Constitution.
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant also referred to the ruling in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar, which said that criminal modifications shouldn't be dismissed for default but rather should be taken into consideration on their own merits.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The assailed ruling, according to the Supreme Court, was unjustified and failed to take the merits of the case into account. It emphasized the need to uphold fair treatment consistent with the standards set out by the Court's decisions despite unfavorable orders that restrict human liberty. It cited the Bani Singh v. State of U.P. decision, which stressed that appeals and revisions should be decided on the basis of the merits rather than being rejected for lack of prosecution..
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concurred with the guidelines established in the Madan Lal Kapoor case, which said that a revision petition should be evaluated on its merits even in the absence of a party or their Counsel. As a result, the High Court remanded the matter for further review. The appellant's interim bail would be maintained up to the resolution of the revision, although the Court requested the High Court to expedite the revision petition. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
