Delhi District Court
M/S N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.R.No.177/16
CNR No: DLKA010033212016
1.M/s N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Satender Tiwari
2. Satender Tiwari
S/o Sh. A.B.Tiwari
3. Gayatri Tiwari
W/o Sh. A.B.Tiwari
All R/o R/o 91, Rampuri Kalkaji, Delhi. ....Revisionists
Versus
M/s Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Through its A.R.Sh. Harish Kumar Gupta
Head Office At:
205, Deepali Building, 92, Nehru Place
Delhi110019. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 09.03.2016 Date of order reserved : 22.07.2016 Date of order : 16.08.2016 O R D E R
The revisionist has assailed order dated 09.12.2015 by way of present revision whereby application of the revisionist filed under Section 254 read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning C.R.No 177/16 /s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 1 of 6 defence witnesses was dismissed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate/East. It is against that order present revision petition has been filed. 2 Notice was issued to the respondent. Trial Court record was summoned.
3 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties on maintainability of the revision petition. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that present revision petition is not maintainable as impugned order is interlocutory in nature. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that present revision petition is maintainable as impugned order is not interlocutory, rather it has substantially affected the rights of the revisionists. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has relied upon judgments:
(1) Amar Nath vs State of Haryana 1977 Cri.L.J. 1891; (2) Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) versus M.S. Sampoornam(Mrs.) (2007) 2 SCC 258.
4 In Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana(supra), it has been observed that the term "interlocutory order" in S.297(2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties can not be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar filing of a revision petition.
C.R.No 177/16 /s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 2 of 65 In Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S.Sampoornam(supra), it has been held that an accused could not be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and denial of such opportunity would lead to an unfair trial. Fair Trial means and includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove innocence of accused. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and denial of such right is denial of fair trial. 6 I have perused the impugned order and Trial Court record as well as file of the present revision petition and material available thereon. The accused persons/revisionist had moved an application under Section 254/91 Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order dated 09.12.2015, Ld. Trial Court made following observations:
"In the present application, it is stated that CC No. 613/13 pertains to a case filed by the complainant against some of its employees, wherein some facts mentioned have bearing on the present case However, the application does not disclose those facts, which are stated to have bearing on the present case. Furthermore, it is admitted by the accused persons that CC No. 613/13 does not pertain to them as they are not a party to that case. It is stated in the present application that there are some signatures available in CC No. 613/13 of Kanhaiya & Srikant, but AR of the complainant has denied to identify their signatures in the connected case i.e. CC No. 41/12. Perusal of the record reveals that nowhere during trial i.e. in notice frame under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons have revealed anything C.R.No 177/16 /s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 3 of 6 about any other case by the complainant, having any bearing upon the present case. Their defence was that accused persons have taken defence that the cheques in question were given in the Court of Sh. Brijesh Sethi Ld. ASJ under pressure and coercion from the complainant in response to notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C. as well as in statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, the contention that record of CC No. 613/13 is relevant in proving the defence of the accused persons is not tenable as it has been raised for the first time by way of present application.
Furthermore, summoning of witnesses listed in the present application for confronting them with some CCTV footage and some signatures also does not appear to have any bearing on the defense taken by the accused persons in the present case. Accused persons have neither taken this defence anywhere on record that some goods and material were given to employees of the complainant on behalf of the complainant nor any receipt was taken from any employee of the complainant for the same. The material defence in the present case of the accused is that the cheques in question were issued under coercion and pressure to the complainant. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the cheques in question were issued in lieu of earlier security cheques given by the accused persons to the complainant and therefore it is important to disprove the liability of the accused persons on the earlier security cheques. However, this argument is not tenable as accused persons have been summoned for offence under Section 138 NI Act in respect of the cheques in question alone and not for any earlier security cheques that may have been given by the C.R.No 177/16 /s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 4 of 6 accused persons to the complainant. Therefore, any defence pertaining to earlier security cheques is irrelevant for the present case.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the present application does not appear to be relevant for proving the defence of the accused persons and therefore is dismissed."
7 Ld. Trial Jude has given detailed reasons for dismissal of application of the revisionists. Moreover, in Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana(supra) itself, it has been held that orders of summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling or reports and such further steps in aid of the pending proceedings, are interlocutory order against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. This decision of Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana(supra) was reviewed and reaffirmed in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1978 SC 47. In Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam 2009 Cri.L.J. 2247, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that orders rejecting application (under Section 311 Cr.P.C. & 91 Cr.P.C.) for production of certain documents by complainant and recalling him for cross examination, order directing production of documents passed without even hearing complainant are interlocutory orders and revision petition against such order is not tenable. 8 Therefore, I am of the view that impugned order being interlocutory in nature, present revision petition is not maintainable. Same is accordingly dismissed. TCR be sent back C.R.No 177/16 /s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 5 of 6 along with copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH ) Dated: 16.08.2016 District & Sessions Judge (East) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi C.R.No 177/16 /s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 6 of 6