Delhi District Court
Chandan Bhatia vs (I) The State on 30 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR II
SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
CNR No. DLND010003642017
Case No. Cr. Rev/353/2017
Chandan Bhatia
S/o Late Sh. Surender Bhatia
R/o Flat No. 114, 3rd Floor,
Lok Vihar Apartment,
Vikaspuri
................ Revisionist/petitioner
Versus
(i) The State
Through Public Prosecutor
(ii) HDFC
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd,
Capital Court, OLOF Palme Marg,
Outer Ring Road, Munirka,
New Delhi
.................. Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.08.2017 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER: 30.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.08.2017 Case No. Cr. Rev/353/2017 Page No. 1 of 4 Vide this petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by Ld. MM wherein a cost of Rs. 20,000/ was imposed upon the revisionist to be deposited in DLSA.
The brief facts of the matter is that a complaint U/s 138 NI Act is pending against the accused (revisionist herein) before Ld. MM. The matter was fixed on 29.07.2017 for appearance of revisionist.
As per the petition, Ld. Counsel for revisionist had appeared before Ld. MM on 29.07.2017 at 11 AM and sought passover as the revisionist who himself is a lawyer was unable to appear at that time due to some urgency and the revisionist appeared before Ld. MM at 12 Noon after passover. At 12.20 PM, the matter was taken up. The revisionist offered to furnish personal bond, however, Ld. MM directed the revisionist to furnish surety bond also. The revisionist was directed to bring surety by 12.40 PM, however, at 12.30 PM, the revisionist again appeared for extending the time for 20 minutes as the revisionist had to arrange surety in a very short time. Ld. MM has further passed over the matter for 12.40 PM. At 12.52 PM, when the revisionist furnished surety bond, the Ld. MM asked him about appearance of surety to which, Ld. Counsel for revisionist informed the Ld. MM that surety Kapil Dev who is clerk had gone to deposit previous cost of Rs. 9,000/ imposed on the last date of hearing. Ld. MM further told him that his clerk cannot be the surety for him. That despite requests made on behalf of the revisionist that he is an independent surety, the same was not allowed by Ld. MM. It Case No. Cr. Rev/353/2017 Page No. 2 of 4 is submitted that again at 1 PM, the revisionist sought passover for 5 minutes as the cost was to be deposited in Bank, however, no such time was given. The Ld. MM while dictating the order imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/ on the revisionist to be paid in DLSA, however, contradiction to the order pronounced in open court, he changed the costs to Rs. 20,000/ in the judicial record. It has been submitted that the Ld. MM without considering the circumstances imposed a cost upon the accused/revisionist.
I have gone through the trial court record and heard arguments.
From the order dated 29.07.2017, it is clear that the matter has been passed over six times by Ld. MM awaiting the appearance of the revisionist in the Court and for furnishing bail bonds, however, for one reason or the other, the revisionist has sought passover. Previously also, Ld. MM has imposed a cost of Rs. 9,000/ upon the revisionist for not appearing in the court in time. The matter was fixed for appearance of revisionist and furnishing bail bonds. Being a Counsel himself, he was supposed to know that he shall appear before the Court alongwith a surety. Also, for the last two hearings, the revisionist had not appeared in person before Ld. MM and the conduct of revisionist in avoiding the proceedings before Ld. MM is writ large.
In my considered view, already over burdened Court has accommodated the revisionist by allowing repeated passovers in the matter. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by Case No. Cr. Rev/353/2017 Page No. 3 of 4 Ld. MM, however, the cost of Rs. 20,000/ imposed upon the revisionist seems to be on very higher side and that also after depositing earlier cost of Rs. 9,000/. The cost of Rs. 20,000/ imposed upon the revisionist is hence reduced to Rs. 5,000/.
The revisionist however is directed to appear before Ld. MM on the next date alongwith his Counsel in time and not to delay the proceedings in any manner.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Revision petition record be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back to court concerned alongwith copy of Order.
Copy of order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for revisionist, as requested.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SUDESH KUMAR II)
ON 30.08.2017 SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS
NEW DELHI
Case No. Cr. Rev/353/2017 Page No. 4 of 4