Cheque bounce case: Big relief for this company! Court recalls its order

In a cheque bounce case, the Madras High Court has recalled its order passed without hearing the accused. On Friday, the high court recalled the order, which was passed in an appeal under the Negotiable Instruments.

Under Section 362 of the CrPC, courts are restrained from altering or reviewing a judgment once the case is disposed of. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cheque bounce is a criminal offence. Representative image/Pixabay

In a cheque bounce case, the Madras High Court has recalled its order passed without hearing the accused. On Friday, the high court recalled the order, which was passed in an appeal under the Negotiable Instruments. New agency PTI reported the high court as saying, "The ultimate aim of this court is to secure the ends of justice and in case the court finds that the order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, affecting the life and liberty of the citizens of this country..." The Friday order was passed by Justice V Parthiban passed the order primarily on the ground that the previous order dated January 21, which set aside the acquittal order passed by the sessions court, was pronounced without hearing the accused. "When the court is confronted with a plea that the accused were wronged by the judgment of this court as they were not heard before the disposal of the appeals, the court cannot take refugee under section 362 of CrPC...," the court said.

The case

The case pertained to appeals moved by BMD Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd and Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt Ltd against the order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, which had acquitted accused P Murali and others in the cheque bounce case. On September 3, 2018, the high court had granted leave to move the appeals. During the entire hearing the accused had failed to appear or be represented through a counsel, PTI reported. Also, all the notices ordered by the court were returned unclaimed. Following this, the court reserved orders and subsequently pronounced it on January 21.

However, two months after the order was passed, the accused filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to recall the order as it was passed without hearing them.

The court allowed their pleas and directed the registry to list the original appeal before the appropriate judge for a fresh hearing.