9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 253 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque - offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - whether the order passed by the Trial Court on 15.05.2018 could be modified when already the said order is confirmed by this Court in MRS. ASHA JAYAWANT MORE VERSUS SMT. SWATI SANJAY REVANKAR 2019 (4) TMI 2010 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ? - HELD THAT - Even though learned counsel for respondent contended that the finding given by this Court while disposing of the Crl.P.No.101047/2018 is not the correct law, admittedly, the said Criminal Petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The accused has not challenged the said order passed by this Court, dismissing the criminal petition. This Court is not sitting in appeal against the dismissal of the criminal petition. As the facts and circumstances of the case stand, the Appellate Court modified its earlier order, after the same has been confirmed by this Court, which is not proper and cannot be upheld - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to modification of order by Appellate Court after dismissal of a criminal petition by the High Court. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Appellate Court modifying a previous order in a case related to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court had convicted the accused, imposing a fine and compensation, which was challenged in the Appellate Court. The accused filed an application seeking suspension of the sentence, which was allowed with a condition to deposit a percentage of the compensation amount. The accused moved a criminal petition before the High Court against this order, which was dismissed. However, the Appellate Court later modified its order, allowing the accused's release on deposit of the entire fine amount, leading to the current challenge before the High Court. The main issue for consideration was whether the impugned order modifying the previous order was justified. The High Court held that the Appellate Court's decision to modify its earlier order after it had been confirmed by the High Court was improper. The High Court emphasized that since the accused did not challenge the High Court's dismissal of the criminal petition, the Appellate Court's subsequent modification was not acceptable. Therefore, the High Court allowed the criminal petition, setting aside the impugned order and directed the Appellate Court to expedite the appeal's hearing and disposal within three months. In conclusion, the High Court found in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Appellate Court's order and emphasizing the importance of respecting decisions made by higher courts. The judgment highlighted the need for consistency in legal proceedings and the importance of following due process to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
|
