Delhi District Court
M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013
M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
In Criminal Revision No.195/13,
M/s Nagesh Behl & Co.
24/9, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 015. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State
Through Public Prosecutor,
Prosecution Branch, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
2. Registrar of Companies,
Delhi & Haryana,
IFCI Tower, 4th Floor,
61 Nehru Place,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
JUGMENT Present revision petition came to be filed on 08.10.2013 challenging the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by Learned ACMM (Special Act), Central, Delhi in Criminal Complaint filed by Registrar of Companies - Respondent no.2 herein.
2. Vide impugned order, Learned ACMM has imposed cost of Rs.5,000/ upon the petitioner, who is accused before that Court in the Crl. Rev. No.195/2013 1 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
aforesaid criminal complaint, while observing that the accused was absent and caused delay on three dates of hearing.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not appear before Learned Trial Court on 10.09.2013 as he, being an auditor, was to deposit Service Tax on that date. In this regard, Learned Counsel has referred to copy of notification issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs to the effect that Central Board of Excise and Customs had extended the date of submission upto 10.09.2013.
4. Learned Company Prosecutor submits that accused - petitioner did not appear before Learned ACMM on three dates and as such the court was justified in imposing cost.
5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.195/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
should have submitted to the Learned Trial Court copy of the application to justify absence of accused on the ground that it was case of compounding or that matter was going to be compounded before the competent authority.
Even if, no copy of application for compounding was filed, having regard to nonappearance of the accused - petitioner on 10.09.2013, Learned ACMM should have imposed reasonable cost. Cost of Rs.5,000/ in each of the seven cases filed against the petitioner is excessive. Record reveals that after filing of the present revision petition accused has put in appearance before the Learned Trial Court and furnished bonds on 15.10.2013. So, this Court deem it to be a fit case to reduce cost to Rs.1,000/.
The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with modification, only on the point of quantum of cost in the manner indicated above.
Trial Court record be returned. Parties to appear before Learned Trial Court tomorrow i.e. date already fixed.
Announced in open court (Narinder Kumar)
st
on 31 day of October, 2013 Addl. Sessions Judge (Central)Delhi
31.10.2013
Crl. Rev. No.195/2013 3 of 3