Mr.Cyril Thomas Rodricks v. Mahendra Pukhraj Mehta & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ss. 38, 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Mr.Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and in view of the settlement the Court can quash the conviction and sentence. In support, he referred to and relied upon a decision of the Gujarat…
Judgment
Mr.Cyril Thomas Rodricks ... Petitioner versus Mahendra Pukhraj Mehta & Anr. ... Respondents ... Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Chande for respondent no.1. Ms.M.H. Mhatre APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 10th November 2009 P.C.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the order of conviction and sentence dated 19th Octobeer 2006 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court in Criminal Case No. 5287/SS/2005 under section 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be quashed and set aside.
By the impugned order, the petitioner was convicted and 2 sentenced u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal, bearing Criminal Appeal no.849 of 2008, in the Court of Sessions, Gr.Bombay. By an order dated 23rd September 2008, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was maintained. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision Application no.476 of 2008 in this Court. The Criminal Revision Application was also dismissed by the Court by its order dated 9th July
It is thus clear that the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate has merged into the order of Court of Sessions which was confirmed by this court in revision. In the circumstances, the order of conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate does not by itself stand in the eye of law but has merged into an appellate order. The order of the Sessions Judge is not challenged in the writ petition. As such, writ petition is not maintainable.
That apart, once an order of conviction has been confirmed by this court in the revision, that order cannot be challenged in the colateral proceedings before a co-ordinate Bench of the same court. In Rupa Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurrah (2002) 4 SCC 388, Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the writ flows down and does not flow up or co-laterally. The writ therefore would not lie for the quashing of the order of conviction and sentence confirmed by this court in revision. 3
Operative part
Mr.Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and in view of the settlement the Court can quash the conviction and sentence. In support, he referred to and relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Balvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lobana & Anr., 2004 Cr.L.J. 3786. In that case, the Court has not held that the order of conviction confirmed by the High Court in revision can be challenged in a co-lateral proceedings in the same court. This decision was not brought to the notice of the Gujarat High Court. I am therefore unable to persuade myself to hold that an order of conviction confirmed by an High Court in revision can be set aside in a colateral proceeding before the same court either under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — ss. 38, 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Nov 2009. The bench was D G KARNIK.
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.