[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs M/S. Gupta Hardware Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 15 July, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010165592017
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./160/2019
M/S. MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
C/O VINAYAK APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, KHANAPARA,
GUWAHATI-22, DIST-KAMRUP (M), REPRESENTED BY SRI ANUP KUMAR
NATH, ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS
2: ANUP KUMAR NATH
C/O M/S MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
VINAYAK APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
VERSUS
M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT,
1956), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DR. R.P. ROAD, GANESHGURI CHARIALI,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DAS, MR. N SHARMA,MR. N I KHAN,MR S DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM (R2), MR. C S RAY (R-1),MS. P GUPTA (R-1),MR. D
KAKOTI(R-1),MS. M LAHAN,MR. M K NATH
Page No.# 2/8
Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./161/2019
M/S. MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
C/O VINAYAK APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
REPRESENTED BY SRI ANUP KUMAR NATH
ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS
2: SRI GHANESHYAM CHOUDHURY
S/O LT. CHANDIKA CHOUDHURY
VILL- KUMARIKATA
P.S. TAMULPUR
DIST. BASKA BTAD
ASSAM.
3: ANUP KUMAR NATH
C/O M/S MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
VINAYAK APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT
1956)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DR. R.P. ROAD
GANESHGURI CHARIALI
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. A DAS
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM (R2) appearing for M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Page No.# 3/8
Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./353/2018
M/S. MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. and ANR.
C/O VINAYAK APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
DIST. KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN)
REP. BY SRI ANUP KUMAR NATH
ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS.
2: SRI ANUP NATH
C/O M/S MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
VINAYAK
APARTMENT 2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
DIST. KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN)
ASSAM
VERSUS
M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. and ANR.
( A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT
1956) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DR. R.P. ROAD
GANESHGURI CHARIALI
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
DIST. KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN)
ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
————
Advocate for : MR. A DAS
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. and ANR.
Page No.# 4/8
Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./352/2018
M/S. MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
C/O VINAYAK APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
DIST. KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN)
REP. BY SRI ANUP KUMAR NATH
ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS.
2: SRI ANUP KUMAR NATH
C/O M/S MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VINAYAK
APARTMENT 2ND FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 22
DIST. KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN)
ASSAM
VERSUS
M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. and ANR.
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT
1956)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DR. R.P. ROAD
GANESHGURI CHARIALI
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
DIST. KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN)
ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
————
Advocate for : MR. A DAS
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for M/S. GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. and ANR.
Page No.# 5/8
:: PRESENT ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Das,
Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. P. Gupta,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 15.07.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s). Also heard
Ms. P. Gupta, the learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This batch of applications under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenges the judgments and orders dated
31.07.2017, 16.08.2017, 31.07.2017 & 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan) in Criminal Appeal Nos.44/2016,
04/2016, 43/2016 & 88/2015 affirming the judgments and orders passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in C.R. Case
Nos.942/2010, 736/2011, 943/2010 & 3677/2009 respectively.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the revision petitions lie in a very short campus. The
petitioners purchased house building materials from the respondent Gupta Hardware
Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners paid the money in cheques. When the cheques were
presented to the Bank for encashment, those were dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds.
4. Cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came into being. Finally, the trial court
convicted the petitioners.
Page No.# 6/8
5. Appeals were filed. The learned appellate court affirmed the judgments of the
trial court and dismissed the appeals.
6. The revision petitions have been filed on the ground that the person called
Manab Lahkar had appeared before the trial court as PW-1 on the strength of an
authorization letter who did not have any authority to depose on behalf of the
respondent.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
8. Rajendra Prasad Gupta was one of the five Directors of M/S. Gupta Hardware
Pvt. Ltd. He had given the authority (Ext.1 dated 01.01.2011) to Manab Lahkar to
depose on behalf of the Company. There is no doubt that a person can appear and
depose on behalf of a company.
9. Regarding the revisional power of the High Court, in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397CrPC which vests
the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.
15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly
explained as under : (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13)
“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine
the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision
is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges
that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding
recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely
indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is
Page No.# 7/8
a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court
has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the
charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may
be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC.”
16. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] has
also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section
228CrPC is sought for as under : ( Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , SCC pp. 482-
83, para 27)
“27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section
397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it
will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts
should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently
impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis
of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be
considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of
charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code
or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the
Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in
invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie
establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the
evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at
the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
***
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot
examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is
sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court
is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will
constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.
***
Page No.# 8/8
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution.
Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The
Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and
reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.”
17. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the
evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally
permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that the trial court was
dealing with an application for discharge.”
10. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that there are no
jurisdictional errors committed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. The
scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure gives the High Court jurisdiction to consider the
correctness, legality and propriety of any finding.
11. A revisional court is not an appellate court. The revisional court is not supposed
to re-appreciate the evidence. Moreover, the plea that has been taken before this
Court, was not taken before the appellate court. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
is of the opinion that these revision petitions are devoid of merit and all the four
revision petitions are dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link