TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds revision order in Section 138 case, emphasizes procedural fairness and rejects maintainability challenge.</h1> <h3>RAHUL SINGH SOMBANSHI Versus SMT. RAJNI PANDEY</h3> RAHUL SINGH SOMBANSHI Versus SMT. RAJNI PANDEY - TMI Issues:Petition to set aside order of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in criminal revision No. 161/2017 allowing respondent's revision against order of JMFC in Cr. Case No. 1669/208 under Section 138 of N.I. Act.Analysis:1. Maintainability of Revision:The petitioner-accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi, allowing the respondent's revision against the order of JMFC. The petitioner's counsel argued that the revision filed by the respondent was not maintainable as the order of JMFC was interim. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the objection regarding maintainability was not raised before the revisional court, citing the principle from the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. The High Court held that the objection of maintainability cannot be raised before the court at this stage, especially since the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act were at an initial stage.2. Amendment in Memo of Complaint:The respondent/complainant sought to amend the memo of complaint under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petitioner argued that allowing the amendment would change the facts significantly, making it difficult for him to defend himself. He contended that the revisional court wrongly permitted the amendment, which was against the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the amendment should be allowed for complete justice, citing various legal precedents supporting the court's inherent power to rectify mistakes and ensure justice. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that at the initial stage of the case, the amendment could be allowed to provide full and effective opportunity to the parties.3. Decision on Merits:After hearing both parties and considering the arguments presented, the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The court highlighted that every case must be decided on merit and that the petitioner-accused had ample opportunity to present his defense before the trial court. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the revisional court allowing the amendment in the memo of complaint and proceeding with the case based on merit.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of allowing amendments for complete justice, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, and highlighting the need to decide cases on their merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
