2019 (4) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sation to respondent No.1. 2. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow. 3. Respondent No.1 (complainant) filed a complaint (CR No.298/1995) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the appellant herein in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. 4. By order dated 29.06.2004, the Judicial Magistrate allowed the complaint and held the appellant guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months along with a fine of Rs. 5000/and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one mont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, the High Court was not justified in allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1 and awarding sentence to the appellant herein and compensation to respondent No.1. The reasons are not far to seek as mentioned hereinbelow. 11. First, the only question before the High Court in the revision filed by respondent No.1(complainant) was as to whether the Appellate Court was justified in remanding the case to the Judicial Magistrate for giving them an opportunity to adduce evidence. In other words, the question before the High Court was whether the remand order of the Appellate Court was legal or not. 12. Second, instead of deciding the aforementioned question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits and whil....