9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to the quantum of sentence passed both the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court they have proceeded as if there is only one accused. Yet another issue is that, the Appellate Court had treated the appeal as if one year sentence was awarded by the Trial Magistrate, while it is only six months and furthermore, here confirmed the sentence for one year, which is bad in law. Revision allowed. - Crl.RC.No.974 of 2017 And Crl.MP.Nos.9112, 13767 & 13678 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2018 - Mr. Justice Rmt. Teekaa Raman For the Petitioner : Mr.G.Ravikumar For the Respondent : Mr.V.Karthik, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Anirudh Krishnan ORDER This Criminal revision case has filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment dated 27.06.2017 passed by the Learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.153 of 2016 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.8607 of 2007, dated 28.04.2016. 2. The convicted first accused company is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent-M/s.Deepti Integrated Logistics Pvt., Ltd., is the complainant on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led Crl.MP.No.13768 of 2017, to amend the cause title in the revision petition in Crl.RC.No.974 of 2017 on the ground that the original private complainant before the Judicial Magistrate by name M/s.Deepti Integrated Logistics Pvt., Ltd., has subsequently amalgamated with the company called Emgee Infrastructure Holdings (India) Private Limited and therefore, the amendment is necessary. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the accused company opposing the amendment of the cause title on the ground that after the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court, the amendment is not warranted. Such a petition ought to have been filed before the trial court and at this stage, the amendment as sought for has to be rejected. 7. After hearing both parties at length and after taking note of various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, this Court finds: (i) During the trial proceedings the complainant M/s.Deepti Integrated Logistics Pvt., Ltd., examined one witness and marked Exhibits P1 to P13 on their side. The accused have examined two defense witnesses and marked exhibits D1 to D20 to dislodge the presumption arose under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 passed in Company Application No. 1466 of 2010 in Company Petition No. 80 of 2010, on the file of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad the complainant company herein namely Deepti Integrated Logistics Private Limited has been amalgamated with the company called Emgee Infrastructure Holdings (India) Private Limited. At the time when the order dated 24.12.2010 was passed, the complaint filed by the complainant company was pending trial. Therefore, at the stage of Criminal Revision Case before this Court, such an amendment cannot be permitted. 9. The complainant company has filed C.C.No.8607 of 2007 for alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In connection with the dishonour of cheque said to have been issued by M/s.Devadass Reddy Property Developers Builders Pvt., Ltd., namely the accused company and which was returned on the ground of insufficient funds. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that the trial in the above said C.C.No.8607 of 2007 had commenced on 23.03.2008. While the defence examined the defence witness was on 06.07.2012. However, much prior to the examination of defence witness, by virtue of the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stated that two accused against whom the complaint was filed is the company and the Managing Director and even in the appeal, A1 alone has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2016. Both the courts below, without noticing the above aspects, has mechanically passed the Judgment of conviction as if there is only one accused against whom the complaint was filed as could be seen from the cause title of the Judgment. This is nothing short of dereliction of duty in pronouncing Judgment in a judicial proceeding for which necessary action has to be initiated on the administrative side. 13. It appears that both the trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge has committed an error in pronouncing the Judgment as against one accused whereas there was two accused arrayed in the complaint filed by the complainant. 14. I am saddened to note that even the Additional Session Judge, while dealing with the Criminal Appeal, did not notice the error committed by the trial Judge and he affirmed the Judgment of conviction passed by the trial Judge, as it is. In this connection, it has to be stated under the Code of Criminal Procedure that certain procedures have been prescribed and they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
