Delhi District Court
Cr No. 89/07 Mukesh Bhargva vs Airforce Naval Housing Board on 7 July, 2007
CR no. 89/07 Mukesh Bhargva Vs Airforce Naval Housing Board
1
IN THE COURT OF SH VINOD KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 89/07
Mukesh Bhargava, 13,
Alipur road, Exchange Store Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54 PETITIONER
VS
Airforce Naval Housing Board,
Office at Air force Station,
Race Course road, N Delhi RESPONDENT
7.7.07
ORDER
Pre: Sh Jayant K Sood, advocate for revisionist.
Fresh revision petition received after allocation. It be checked and registered.
Trial court record has been summoned. Arguments heard.
1 The revisionist is an accused in case No. 1696 of the year 2002 pending in the court of Sh Sanjay Bansal, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate. The present case was fixed for defence evidence. Vide impugned order dt. 22.6.07, Ld CR no. 89/07 Mukesh Bhargva Vs Airforce Naval Housing Board 2 Metropolitan Magistrate closed the defence evidence after giving numerous opportunities to the revisionist. The ordersheet dt. 23.5.07 shows that Ld Metropolitan Magistrate had given last and final opportunity to lead defence evidence to the revisionist and the other accused persons. Despite last and final opportunity the revision did not examine any witness and accordingly Ld Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to close defence evidence.
2 Ld counsel for revisionist submits that he wants one more opportunity to lead evidence in defence. It is brought to the notice of this court by Ld defence counsel that notice to complainant be also issued in the present case. However, I am of the opinion that this is a very old case and next date in the present case is very short ie 10.7.07. Issuing notice to complainant and thereafter hearing to the parties may result in unnecessarily delaying the matter. Moreover, the present matter can even be decided without hearing the complainant.
3 I am of the opinion that although there is no infirmity in the order of Ld Metropolitan Magistrate, however, the revisionist wants to lead an important document ie his resignation from the directorship of the company. To my mind the defence as explained by Ld counsel for revisionist is is quite important for just decision of the case. 4 Accordingly, I set aside the order of closing the defence evidence in respect of revisionist only. It is directed that on next date of hearing ie 10.7.07, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate shall give a very short date to revisionist to lead his evidence. However, it is made clearthat only one CR no. 89/07 Mukesh Bhargva Vs Airforce Naval Housing Board 3 opportunity shall be given by trial court to revisionist to lead evidence in defence.
5 The revisionist is also subjected to cost of Rs 500/- to be paid to the complainant before leading the evidence in defence. If the revisionist does not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence on the date given by the trial court, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate would be at liberty to close his defence evidence.
6 With this direction, the revision petition is disposed of.
7 Copy of the order alongwith trial court record be returned back to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on 7.7.07. VINOD KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI.