1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112/2010 Gopal s/o Wasudeorao Shelekar V/s. Nishant Sahakari Pat Puravattha Sanstha, Akola, Branch at Akot through it’s Branch Manager Shri. Dinkar Panjabrao Mohokar and another ..................................................................................................................................................... Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ..................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A. J. Thakkar, counsel for the Applicant Mr. M. K. Pathan, APP for Respondent no. 2 Mr. A. B. Patil, counsel for Respondent no. 1 Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 29th June 2011 1. Heard. 2. Perused R&P. 3. It appears that the learned J.M.F.C., Akot, by order dated 27/11/2008 in Summary Criminal Case No. 4573/2001, was pleased to convict the revision applicant herein for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accused was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant, in default of payment of compensation amount, he shall undergo one 2 month simple imprisonment. The judgment and order were taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, District Akola, who in absence of parties and their respective counsels on 03/08/2009, proceeded to pronounce the judgment with open Court merely hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader and allowed the revision by enhancing the sentence awarded by the trial Court instead of imprisonment till rising of the Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, directed accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. Learned advocate for the revision applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, without hearing the parties and their respective counsels, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, improper, unjust and contrary to law, beyond parameters of settled principles of exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. My attention has been invited to noting dated 03/08/2009, which was the day of judgment in the Sessions Court, Akot in respect of Criminal Revision No. 06/2009, on that day, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot had noted that “parties by their respective counsels are absent when called. AGP – Shri. Rohee, for the State, present. Heard – AGP. Judgment pronounced in open Court. Revision Petition 3 is allowed. Trial Court to take appropriate action for commitment of the accused, in Jail. Revision is disposed, accordingly. Proceeding closed.” 6. The above noting by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, would indicate that the learned advocate for the revision applicant as well as learned advocate for respondent no. 1 were absent, who were main contesting parties. There was no question of hearing Assistant Government Pleader in the proceedings for Criminal Revision No. 6/2009. Although, it appears that in the impugned Judgment, the presence of learned Assistant Government Pleader is noted in appearance column while Shri. R. B. Agrawal, had appeared for revisionist and Shri. R. M. Sadrani had appeared for respondent no. 1, but when they were absent on 03/08/2009, at earlier noting did not indicate that they were heard before judgment was pronounced. The impugned judgment and order is not sustainable at all, it is unjust, contrary to law and utterly improper hence, it is quashed and set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to hear the parties and their counsels and decide Criminal Revision No. 6/2006 in accordance with law as early as possible. JUDGE Punde