Mr.P.Sathyanarayanan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June 2005 passed in Criminal application NO.550 of 2005, the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the…
- Para 44. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of three weeks from toady. In view of this statement, the trial Court…
Judgment
Mr.P.Sathyanarayanan .... Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors...Respondents Mr.Prosper D’Souza k/b K.O.Devassi Advocate for Petitioner Mr.M.S.Mhambre A.P.P. for State CORAM:SMT.V.K.TAHILRMANI,J. DATED:3rd August 2005 P.C.P.C. P.C.:-
#1. Heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner, and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
#2. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of process issued against him in Criminal Case NO.2096/SS/04 which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Bombay. In the said case, process has been issued against the Petitioner under Section 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
#3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June 2005 passed in Criminal application NO.550 of 2005, the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the Petitioner to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process.
#4. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of three weeks from toady. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of three weeks from today.
#5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the Petitioner before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on merits after hearing necessary parties.
#6. Office to issue an authenticated copy of this order to the parties.
#7. Petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHAILRAMANI,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — ss. 138, 141.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 Aug 2005. The bench was V K TAHAILRAMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.