Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi In Gurpreet ... vs M/S Ranbaxy on 11 February, 2011

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi In Gurpreet ... vs M/S Ranbaxy on 11 February, 2011

C.C.No.593/10

11.02.2011

Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused in person.

He submits that his counsel is busy in another court. To be called after 10 minutes.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 At this stage, Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused with counsel.

Statement of accused recorded. Accused wants to lead defence evidence. Accused wants to examine himself and expert in his defence. Copy of Expert opinion is supplied to the complainant. To be listed on 14.03.2011 for further proceedings.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2219/10 11.02.2011 Present: AR of the complainant.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let order dated 08.09.2008 be complied with. List on 01.06.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.3455/10 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Bailable Warrant was directed to be issued against the accused person on the last date.

Bailable Warrant not received back. Be awaited. List on 10.03.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2218/10 11.02.2011 Present: None for the complainant.

Accused with counsel.

It appears that complainant has already been examined and discharged. Matter is fixed for remaining complainant's evidence. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurpreet Singh vs M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. Crl.MC 429/2009 decided on 02.08.2010 has observed that:

"3. I have perused the orders passed by learned MM after summoning of accused. A perusal of these orders would show that the learned MM proceeded with the case as if it was a summon trial case and after issuing notice asked the complainant to again lead evidence despite the fact that the evidence by way of affidavit of complainant was already on record. The Legislature has specifically made offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as a summary trial and once the accused is summoned, he has to state his plea and state his defence in terms of Section 263 (g) read with Section 251 Cr.P.C. The summary trial proceedings can be converted to summon trial case only under two circumstances, firstly when the Court comes to a conclusion that the sentence of one year would be inadequate and it was a case where sentence of more than one year may be required to be awarded, secondly when the MM is of the view for some reason (to be recorded) that the case should be tried as a summon trial. In the present case none of the two things happened. The learned MM did not pass an order as to why the case was to be converted to a summon trial. The learned MM was bound to follow procedure of summary trial and was bound to treat the affidavit and evidence already filed by the complainant on record as the evidence sufficient to convict the accused unless accused had pleaded a tenable defence and accused was prepared to prove the defence. The learned MM therefore went wrong in posting the case repeatedly for complainant's evidence, without asking the accused/petitioner as to what was the his defence. Since the learned trial court committed a grave error in treating this case as a summon trial case, the order of learned MM suffered from jurisdictional error and was liable to be set aside in revision. The learned Sessions Judge, though for different reasons, had allowed the revision, I consider that this Court need not interfere into the order of learned Sessions Judge. Directions are hereby given to learned MM to treat the present case as a summary trial case and the complainant's evidence, already given during inquiry at pre-summoning stage should be treated as evidence at post-summoning stage in terms of Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in terms of Section 263(2) of Cr.P.C (summary trial proceedings) and the petitioner should be asked to lead evidence in defence. (See judgment titled "Rajesh Aggarwal v State and another Crl.M.C. 1996 of 2010 decided on 28th July, 2010)".

In view of the above observation accused to disclose his defence and lead defence evidence.

It appears from the List of Witnesses filed by the complainant that he wants to examine two more witnesses i.e. concerned clerk from bank of the complainant and bank of the accused.

In view of section-146 NI Act, the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption of dihonour and not upon the complainant to prove it.

In the circumstances, complainant's evidence stands closed. As observed above, accused has to disclose his defence. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he wants to examine the banker and official from PS: Keshav Puram in defence.

Ld. Counsel for the accused further submits that he will dispute the cheque returning memo and dishonour of cheque.

Witnesses, if required to be summoned on behalf of the accused be summoned.

Steps to be taken by the accused person. List of witnesses to be filed. Complainant be intimated.

List on 01.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer.

C.C.No.2230/10

11.02.2011

Present:      None.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let previous order be complied with, if applied for. List on 01.06.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2213/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused absent.

A court notice was directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 12.01.2010.

There is no report regarding such issuance. Let the Previous Ahlmad to explain. Ld. Counsel submits that the same may be issued afresh. Let it be issued afresh.

List on 06.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2210/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused absent.

A court notice was directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 12.01.2010.

There is no report regarding such issuance. Let the Previous Ahlmad to explain. Ld. Counsel submits that the same may be issued afresh. Let it be issued afresh.

List on 06.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.966/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

It appears that previous process has not been received back. Be awaited. Ahlmad to report.

However, in the meantime, the process be issued afresh. Summons to be sent through Area SHO. List on 02.05.2011. Dasti.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2238/10 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let previous order be complied with. List on 28.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer.

C.C.No.2231/10

11.02.2011

Present:      None.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let previous order be complied with, if applied for. Issue court notice to the complainant. List on 28.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.5558/11 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let previous order be complied with. List on 05.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2224/10 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Summons issued to the accused person received back. Report perused. File was already received on transfer by this court. It appears that accused is deliberately avoiding the process of law. Let a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be issued against the accused.

Summons was issued for the date fixed i.e. on 10.03.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.1661/10 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Complainant is exempted as applied. There is no report in respect of filing of process fees or issuance of process.

Ld. Counsel has shown me a counter foil of PF filed. Ahlmad to check and report.

In the meanwhile, previous order be complied with. List on 05.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2214/10 11.02.2011 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.

Summons sent to the accused person received back. Report perused. It appears that accused person is deliberately avoiding the process of law. Let a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.2,00,0000/- be issued against the accused persons with one surety of like amount.

To be listed on 19.03.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2242/10 11.02.2011 Present: None for the complainant.

Counsel for the accused.

He submits that accused Devender Gupta has expired and accused company has already been liquidated.

Death Certificate dated 18.01.2011 has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.

Let the facts be verified.

Complainant be also intimated. To be listed on 05.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2241/10 11.02.2011 Present: None for the complainant.

Counsel for the accused.

He submits that accused Devender Gupta has expired and accused company has already been liquidated.

Death Certificate dated 18.01.2011 has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.

Let the facts be verified.

Complainant be also intimated. To be listed on 05.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2240/10 11.02.2011 Present: None for the complainant.

Counsel for the accused.

He submits that accused Devender Gupta has expired and accused company has already been liquidated.

Death Certificate dated 18.01.2011 has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.

Let the facts be verified.

Complainant be also intimated. To be listed on 05.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.1408/10 11.02.2011 Present: Both the parties.

Statement of both the accused persons recorded separately. To be listed for defence evidence on 07.04.2011. Accused to take all necessary steps.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.3002/10 11.02.2011 Present: Both the parties.

Complainant is cross-examined and discharged. Put up for Statement of accused and defence evidence on 20.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.956/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Warrant received back. Report perused. Ld. Counsel submits that accused person is deliberately escaping the process of law.

HC Devender Singh be called for 10.03.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2233/10 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

An exemption application on behalf of AR of the complainant has been moved. Allowed.

It appears that on 03.08.2010, matter was fixed for 11.02.2011. However, typographic error occurred as the date as appearing in the order sheet is 11.02.2011.

The same is corrected.

Let previous order be complied with for 13.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.4698/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused with counsel.

Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed for one opportunity to disclose his defence and lead defence evidence.

Accused may file a written statement U/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. Accused may also file list of witnesses, if any.

Accused, if choses examine himself in defence, he may make a request U/s 315 Cr.P.C. All the steps to be taken at the earliest.

Matter be adjourned to 08.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.4696/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused with counsel.

Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed for one opportunity to disclose his defence and lead defence evidence.

Accused may file a written statement U/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. Accused may also file list of witnesses, if any.

Accused, if choses examine himself in defence, he may make a request U/s 315 Cr.P.C. All the steps to be taken at the earliest.

Matter be adjourned to 08.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.4695/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused with counsel.

Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed for one opportunity to disclose his defence and lead defence evidence.

Accused may file a written statement U/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. Accused may also file list of witnesses, if any.

Accused, if choses examine himself in defence, he may make a request U/s 315 Cr.P.C. All the steps to be taken at the earliest.

Matter be adjourned to 08.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.1130/10 11.02.2011 Present: Both the parties.

On the last date, remaining cross-examination of the accused person was deferred.

Today, ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he cannot cross- examine the accused person.

He has to go to another court.

He prayed for an opportunity. This ground is not sufficient to adjourn the matter. Ld. Counsel has to cross-examine the accused person. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the complainant again requested that in another court he has to argue on a bail matter.

He again prayed for one opportunity. Let the matter be adjourned. However, it is made clear that complainant has to cross-examine the accused on the next date of hearing.

List on 12.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer.

C.C.No.5562/11

11.02.2011

Present:      None.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let previous order be complied with for 01.06.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer. C.C.No.2229/10 11.02.2011 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.

Since file has already been received on transfer, Ahlmad submitted that summons issued as per direction.

Summons received back with a report "Tala Band". Summons sent through Speed Post received back with a report "No such person".

Ld. Counsel prayed for dasti summons. It be issued. List on 06.05.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer. C.C.No.5559/11 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel Ms. Manju Lal for the complainant.

She submits that she has been recently engaged. She will file necessary Vakalatnama in due course. Let previous order be complied with as prayed. List on 01.06.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File is received by way of transfer.

C.C.No.5557/11

11.02.2011

Present:      None.

Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given. Let previous order be complied with, if applied for. List on 01.06.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.3599/10 11.02.2011 Present: None of for the complainant.

One person, namely, Praful Rocky appears on behalf of complainant. He has no authorization from the complainant. It appears that a notice was directed to be issued to the complainant since no one has been appearing on behalf of complainant for several dates.

Let the accused be summoned as directed vide order dated 19.11.2008. Complainant to take all necessary steps. List on 01.06.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 File taken up on application for cancellation of NBW. C.C.No. 5077/10 11.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the accused.

NBW cancelled.

However, medical certificate has awarding the application to be filed on the next date of hearing.

Accused be present on the next date of hearing. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also moved an application u/s 145 (2) N.I. Act for cross examination of the complainant.

The grounds gives in the present application are:-

"1. Dispute in respect of legality of invoices and amount claim,

2. There is also a dispute between the complainant and the accused and the same is pending in the consumer court.

3. Even the name of the accused persons is disputed."

Hon'ble High Court in Boby Kapoor Vs.M/S City Finance, Consumer Finance Ind. Ltd decided on 02.02.2011 as observed:

"A case under Section 138 of NI Act is a summary trial proceeding. The right of cross examination is given to the accused only if the accused discloses his defence at the time of taking notice and the Court considers that in order to meet the defence, cross examination of witness was necessary. In the present case, the defence taken by the accused was that the cheque was a forged document. He had not taken the defence that he had not taken the loan and the loan agreement was not executed.

In the present case accused may cross examine the complainant on the point first and third as noted above. Complainant be summoned. Accused to take necessary steps to be listed on date fixed.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.505/10 11.02.2011 Present: None for the complainant Accused in person.

Court notice issued to the complainant not received back. It appears that the matter is the stage of final arguments since 13.10.2008. Ld. Counsel for the accused has not been appearing.

Let the matter be placed for orders on 26.02.2011. however, parties may file the written arguments.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.304/10 Anil Aggarwal Vs. Manoj Sharma 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused with counsel.

Ld. Counsel has filed a Internet generated delivery report in respect of summons issued to the witnesses.

It appears that article was dispatched on 09.02.2011. There was clear directions to serve the summons to the witnesses dasti.

Ld. Counsel has prayed for one opportunity. Let one opportunity be given to the accused. Let summons be issued to the accused. Dasti. Summons be served on the witnesses by speed post and dasti. Be listed on 11.03.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.1275/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant in person.

Accused is absent.

The Ld. Counsel for the complainant was present in the morning. The matter was called in the morning.

Ld. Counsel had placed an Internet generated delivery report in respect of summons issued to the accused person.

Summons may be declared to be served u/s 144 (2) N.I. Act.

Accused is absent despite service. Let a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be issued against the accused for 04.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.362/10 & 363/10 11.02.2011 Present: Proxy counsel for the accused.

These are two connected matters.

Matters were finally settled yesterday. Matter was listed today for furnishing of receipt in respect of the cost imposed. Ld. Counsel has filed a receipt of cost of Rs.20000/-. The combined cost was imposed in both the files.

Matter stand concluded. File be consigned to Record Room.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C. No.342/10 11.02.2011 Present: Both the parties.

Vide separate Judgment the accused Ajit Singh is acquitted in respect of the cheque Ex.CW-1/4. However, he is convicted in respect of the cheque Ex.CW-1/3.

Let the parties heard on the point of the sentence on 25.02.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.1487/10 11.02.2011 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.

Proprietor of the accused firm with counsel.

The matter has already been settled as per Joint Statement recorded on 06.12.2010.

Today, Complainant has received two Pay Orders Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 (Photocopy is taken on record) of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.79,000/- respectively as settlement amount.

Joint statement recorded in this respect.

The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.

Accused is acquitted of the charges.

Bail bond and surety bond, if any, be discharged.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.3971/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant in person.

Accused with counsel.

The matter is settled in the court today.

Statement of Complainant recorded in this respect.

The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.

Accused is acquitted of the charges.

Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.580/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused with counsel.

The matter is settled in the court today.

Statement of Complainant recorded in this respect.

The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.

Accused is acquitted of the charges.

Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 C.C.No.5571/11 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against the accused person for the next date of hearing.

Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 01.04.2011.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/11.02.11 CC.No.2222/10 Sandeep Sunpedia Vs. Shakeel Ahmad 11.02.2011 Case received by way of transfer. Be checked and registered.

Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Considering the circumstances of transfer one opportunity is being given.

Let the order dated 25.10.2008 be complied with on filing of PF for 30.05.2011.

(Rakesh Kumar Singh) MM1 (NI Act)Central/THC Delhi / 11.02.2011 CC.No.2795/10 11.02.2011 Present: Complainant with Counsel.

Counsel for the accused.

Accused is absent.

An application has been moved on behalf of the accused by his counsel for seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that there is some problem in the family of accused.

The ground mentioned in the application doen not inspire confidence. Exemption application dismissed.

However Ld. Counsel for accused submits that the accused will make full payment within three months.

It is made clear that such delayed compounding of offence will attract to a cost of 10 percent as per directions given by the Hon'ble Supremet Court in Judgment titled as "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Baba Lal decided on 03.05.2010".

Considering the scope of section 147 N.I. Act, let one opportunity be given to the parties.

Let the matter be listed for final disposal on 11.05.2011. At the request of parties the date is changed as 12.05.2011.

(Rakesh Kumar Singh) MM1 (NI Act)Central/THC Delhi / 11.02.2011 CC.No.536/10 11.02.2011 Present: None for the complainant.

Accused with counsel.

It appears that the complainant is not willing to compromise the matter.

Let the matter be continued in accordance with law as per summary procedure prescribed.

However, Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused is willing to settle the matter with entire cheque amount.

One more opportunity given to the accused. Let the matter be adjourned to 11.03.2011.

(Rakesh Kumar Singh) MM1 (NI Act)Central/THC Delhi / 11.02.2011 CC.No.786/10 11.02.2011 Present: None.

It appears that court notice was directed to be issued to both the parties.

The same has not been received back. Be awaited. In the meanwhile, fresh notice be issued for 04.04.2011.

(Rakesh Kumar Singh) MM1 (NI Act)Central/THC Delhi / 11.02.2011 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.

CC.No.2217/10
11.02.2011
Present:     None.