Delhi District Court
M/S. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs . State on 16 May, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA,
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR No. 49/13
FIR No. 198/11
PS: Connaught Place
U/s. 138 N.I. Act
M/S. TRAXPO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. & ORS. VS. STATE
APPEARANCES
Present: Mr. Kuljit Rawal, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner/revisionist.
Mr. Dipender Garg, Ld. Advocate Associate for Mr. Arvind
Chaudhary, Ld. Advocat for respondent no.2.
16.5.2013
ORDER
1. This order shall decide the present criminal revision filed as per Section 397 Cr.P.C assailing an order dated 18.12.2012 passed by Shri Aproov Sawaria, Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the above noted case.
2. Briefly stated, the grievance of the petitioner/revisionist is that the Ld. MM vide impugned order has allowed the complainant/respondent to file an additional evidence by way of affidavit. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 29.11.2012 Ld. Judge put the notice of accusation as per Section 251 Cr.P.C to the accused/petitioner and certain documents were taken by the petitioner/revisionist and the Ld. MM passed the following orders:
18.12.2012 Present: Shri Vipin, Advocate for the complainant alongowith AIR.
Shri Kuljeet Rawal, Advocate for the accused alongwith accused no.2.
1. Exemption application moved on behalf of accused no.3. Allowed for today only. There is sufficient material on M/s. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Page 1 of 2 2 record of the Court file to frame notice of accusation against the accused no.1 and 2 as per Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The notice of accusation has been framed. The notice has been read over and explained to the accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In view of the defence taken, the accused persons are allowed to conduct cross-examination of complainant's witness U/s. 145(2) of NI Act.
3. Court notice to the doctor has not been sent. As the accused persons have entered appearance, the requirement of sending court notice to the doctor for verifying the medical certificate is dispensed with.
4. Copy of evidence affidavit be supplied to the accused within two weeks in advance before the next date of hearing. Put up for recording of CE on 15.02.2013.
3. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that there is nothing in the impugned order which would suggest that Ld. Trial Court has allowed the complainant/respondent no.2 to file additional evidence by way of affidavit. The impugned order when interpreted in a meaningful manner implies that the Ld. Trial Court only directed the complainant to supply the copy of affidavit that was led during the pre-summoning evidence. Mr. Dipender Garg, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 conceded during the arguments that they are not going to file any additional evidence by way of affidavit. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner that the impugned order is likely to weaken the defence of the accused is totally mis founded.
4. In the said view of the matter, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and records.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (Dharmesh Sharma)
TODAY i.e. 16.5.2013 ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi
M/s. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Page 2 of 2