Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners (M/S. A. Seating, a partnership firm, and its partners) against the judgment of the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.2458/2019 dated 17.09.2021, which remanded the case to the trial court. The petitioners had been convicted by the XII Additional and ACMM (SCCH-8), Bengaluru, in C.C.No.12481/2017 dated 31.10.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The respondent, M/S. Nandini Modulers, a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor T. Devendra Reddy, had filed a complaint against the petitioners for dishonour of a cheque. The trial court convicted the petitioners. The petitioners appealed to the appellate court, which, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, remanded the case to the trial court for de novo trial. The petitioners then filed this revision petition under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court examined the issue of whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to remand the case without setting aside the conviction and without finding any illegality or irregularity in the trial court's judgment. The High Court noted that the appellate court's order of remand was without jurisdiction as it did not find any infirmity in the trial court's judgment and merely remanded the case for fresh consideration. The High Court held that the revisional court's powers under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. are limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the lower court's decision and cannot order a retrial without proper grounds. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction. The court directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court to receive the sentence on 25.04.2022.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Power of Remand - Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. - Appellate court in revision cannot order remand for de novo trial without setting aside the conviction and without finding any illegality or irregularity in the trial court's judgment - The revisional court's powers are limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the lower court's decision and cannot assume the role of an appellate court to order a retrial without proper grounds - Held that the order of remand passed by the appellate court was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside (Paras 5-8). B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Conviction under Section 138 - Trial court convicted the accused for dishonour of cheque - Appellate court in revision remanded the case for de novo trial without setting aside the conviction - The High Court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction - Held that the revision petition is allowed and the appellate court's order is set aside (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. has the jurisdiction to remand the case to the trial court for de novo trial without setting aside the conviction and without finding any illegality or irregularity in the trial court's judgment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the appellate court's order dated 17.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.2458/2019, and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2019 in C.C.No.12481/2017. The petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court on 25.04.2022 to receive the sentence.
Law Points
- Appellate court's power of remand under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is limited
- cannot order de novo trial without setting aside conviction
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 397(1) Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
