powers of revisional court -when appeal was remanded - whether revision court direct the appeal court to decid the appeal afresh or confirm the trial court order after setting aside the order of remand ? = if the High Court had examined the issue of remand and held the same to be legal, it could have directed the Magistrate to decide the complaint in terms of the directions given by the Appellate Court. However, if the remand had been held illegal, the High Court was under a legal obligation to remand the case to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits with a view to decide as to whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing the complaint and awarding sentence. The reason being that the Appellate Court once decided to remand the case to the Magistrate did not go into the merits of the case. 14. In the light of the aforementioned three reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed jurisdictional error in 6 allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2103 OF 2008
Susanta Dey              ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Babli Majumdar & Anr.           …Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final
judgment and order dated 11.04.2008 passed by
the   High   Court   of   Calcutta   in   Criminal   Revision
No.3048 of 2005 whereby the High Court allowed
the   criminal   revision   filed   by   respondent   No.1
herein   and   while   setting   aside   the   order   of   the
Appellate Court, awarded simple imprisonment for
1
two months to the appellant herein and directed
him   to   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.3   lakhs   by   way   of
compensation 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
2
simple   imprisonment   for   one   month   and   also
awarded  a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs payable to
respondent   No.1   (complainant)   by   the   appellant
(accused).
5. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Criminal
Appeal   No.   7/2005)   in   the   Court   of
Sessions/Magistrate.   By   order   dated   12.07.2005,
the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and while
setting aside the order dated   29.06.2004 of the
Judicial   Magistrate   remanded   the   case   to   the
Judicial Magistrate for giving an opportunity to both
the   parties   to   adduce   fresh   evidence   and   then
decide the complaint.
6. Respondent No.1 (complainant) felt aggrieved
and filed revision in the High Court at Calcutta. By
impugned   order,   the   High   Court   allowed   the
revision and while setting aside the order of the
Appellate Court, awarded simple imprisonment for 2
3
months to the appellant herein and also directed
him to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs by way of compensation to
respondent No.1. 
7. It is against this order,  the appellant (accused)
has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of
special leave  in this Court.
8. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
9. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting
aside the impugned order remand the case to the
Appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh on
merits in accordance with law.
10. In   our   opinion,   the   High   Court   was   not
justified in allowing the revision filed by respondent
4
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 while
allowing   the   complaint,   sentenced   the   appellant
(accused) with  simple imprisonment for 2 months
along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3
5
Lakhs to respondent No.1 (complainant). It was,  in
our view,  not legally permissible.
13. Third,   if   the   High   Court   had   examined   the
issue of remand and held the same to be legal, it
could   have  directed   the  Magistrate  to   decide   the
complaint in terms of the directions given by the
Appellate Court. However,  if the remand had been
held   illegal,   the   High   Court   was   under   a   legal
obligation to remand the case to the Appellate Court
to decide the appeal afresh on merits with a view to
decide as to whether the Magistrate was justified in
allowing the complaint and awarding sentence. The
reason being that the Appellate Court once decided
to remand the case to the Magistrate did not go into
the merits of the case.     
14. In   the   light   of   the   aforementioned   three
reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the
High   Court   committed   jurisdictional   error   in
6
allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1. The
impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
15. We, also perused the order of the Appellate
Court dated 12.07.2005 (running in 25 pages) with
a view to find out as to whether it was justified in
remanding the case to the Magistrate.
16. Having perused the order, we are of the view
that   the  Appellate  Court   erred   in  remanding  the
case to the Magistrate.
17. In our view, there was neither any need and
nor   any   occasion   to   remand   the   case   to   the
Magistrate. In other words, we are of the view that
there   was   enough   material   before   the   Appellate
Court on the basis of which the appeal on merits
could   have   been   decided   one   way   or   the   other
instead of remanding the case to the Magistrate for
deciding it afresh.
7
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed.  The impugned
order   and   the   order   dated   12.07.2005   of   the
Appellate Court are set aside.  Criminal Appeal No.
7/2005 filed by the accused (appellant herein) is
restored to its original file. 
19. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the
appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law on
the basis of the material already on record.
20. It is, however, made clear that the Appellate
Court will decide the appeal strictly in accordance
with   law   without   being   influenced   by   any
observations made by the Appellate Court in the
order dated 12.07.2005 as also in the impugned
order of the High Court and this order.
8
21. Let the appeal be decided within six months
from the date of appearance of the parties before the
Appellate Court on 15.04.2019. 
     
                                     .………...................................J.
                                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]   
                               
     …...……..................................J.
                    [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 28, 2019
9