2019 (4) TMI 115 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of remand of the case - Offences punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - imprisonment with fine - Held that - 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 dated 12.07.2005 of the Appellate Court are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the High Court in a criminal revision case.
2. Legality of the remand order passed by the Appellate Court.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, which awarded simple imprisonment and compensation to the appellant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The High Court had set aside the order of the Appellate Court and awarded the said punishment. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in not limiting its review to the legality of the remand order passed by the Appellate Court. Instead, the High Court delved into the merits of the case, which was beyond the scope of the revision filed by the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to award the sentence and compensation was not legally permissible, as it overstepped its jurisdiction.

2. The Supreme Court further analyzed the order of the Appellate Court, which remanded the case to the Magistrate for fresh evidence. The Supreme Court found that the Appellate Court had erred in remanding the case. It noted that there was sufficient material before the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on its merits without the need for a remand. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court should have decided the appeal based on the existing record rather than sending it back to the Magistrate. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the impugned order of the High Court and the remand order of the Appellate Court. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision on the appeal strictly in accordance with the law and without influence from previous orders.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found jurisdictional errors in both the High Court's decision to award punishment and compensation and the Appellate Court's decision to remand the case. The Supreme Court set aside these orders and directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh within six months, based on the material already on record and in accordance with the law.