24.07.2026 Serial no. 11 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29 IA No. : CRAN/1/2026, CRAN/2/2026, CRAN/3/2026 in CRR 5358 of 2025 SHYAMALENDRA NATH SENGUPTA @ SHYAMAL SENGUPTA -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Ms. Sofia Nesar, Mr. Santanu Sett, Mr. Soumadip Chakraborty, Advocates … … For the Petitioner. 1. In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22nd November, 2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Calcutta in relation to Criminal Appeal No. 37/2024. By the impugned order learned Court below dismissed the appeal on the ground that the admission of appeal was dependent on the condition precedent and the condition was of depositing 20 per cent of the fine amount before the learned Trial Court and since the appellant has disobeyed the said order even after taking sufficient time so the Appellate Court did not find any reason to proceed with the appeal and thereby dismissed the same. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument 2 Act being Complaint Case No. CNS/19/2019 vide Judgment dated 27.12.2023. Being aggrieved by that Judgment, the petitioner preferred the above-mentioned criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 37/2024. By an order dated 21.03.2024 the Court below had condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter by an order dated 2nd August, 2024 the Appellate Court directed the appellant/accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20 per cent of the fine or compensation before the Trial Court within 28.08.2024. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter he had undergone operation and for which he could not deposit the said amount before the Court below within the scheduled date. Thereafter, by the impugned order learned Court below dismissed the appeal for non-payment of the said 20 per cent amount of compensation. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gupta submits that in execution of the order of sentence and conviction, the petitioner was put behind the bar. Thereafter, a settlement took place between the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party herein and by dint of such settlement an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been paid by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, the appeal should be heard on 3 merit since the order dated 2.8.2024 has been complied in one way or the other. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the appeal which has been preferred by the petitioner/appellant should not be dismissed on the ground of technicality and it should be heard on merit by the Court below. Moreover, the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta reflects that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid by the accused to the complainant and, therefore, I find that the order impugned dated 22nd November, 2024 is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice. 6. In view of above, CRR/5358/2025 is allowed. The order impugned dated 22nd November, 2024 is hereby set aside. 7. Learned Court below, i.e., Appellate Court is hereby directed to restore the appeal to its original file and number and dispose of the same on merit at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from this date. 8. Certified copy of orders filed by the petitioner based on CNS/19/2019 are taken on record. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)