Calcutta High Court: The single judge bench of Bibek Chaudhuri,* J. has held that an application under S. of is not needed to be disposed of on the date of examination of the accused under S. of the , the same can be disposed of at any point of time.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the opposite party-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner-accused under S. of the when the complainant deposited the cheque issued by the petitioner as the payment for the order of N-95 (5 layers) Mask and Surgical Mask for encashment and the same was dishonored due to insufficiency of fund. The complainant was examined under S. of the and filed her evidence on affidavit in terms of S. of the .
The Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07-10-2021, allowed the application filed by the complainant under S. of the for payment of interim compensation by the accused without mentioning any mode of payment. The accused was examined under S. of the and the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 03-12-2021, refused the accused petition praying for modification of the order dated 07-10-2021 and fixed the next date of the hearing on 15-03-2022.
Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 07-10-2021 and 03-12-2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the accused preferred the present revision application and contended that the Judicial Magistrate made an error in passing the impugned orders as the application under S. of the was not heard and disposed of.
Observation
The Court observed that S. of the empowers the Court to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant where the accused pleads not guilty to the accusations made in the complaint.
The Court remarked that it is not mandatory that on the date of examination of the accused under S. of the , the application under S. of the should be disposed of, it can be disposed of at any point of time.
The Court observed that the accused’s opportunity to cross-examine the complainant (PW1) was taken away from him by fixing the next date for examination of the accused under S. of the and hearing of the petition under S. of the .
Verdict
While disposing of the present revision, the Court, for ends of justice, directed the Trial Court to give opportunity to the accused to cross-examine PW1 and disposed of the application under S. of the without giving any adjournment to either of the parties.
[Susanta Chakraborty v. Dey’s Construction, , order dated 04-05-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sayan Chattapadhyay and Ms. Payel Shome, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Mr. Debasis Kar and Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, Counsel for the Opposite Party.
The post appeared first on .