Delhi District Court
M/S Green Express vs . Kuleshwar on 7 June, 2012
M/s Green Express Vs. Kuleshwar CC No.3597/10 07.06.2012
Present: None.
Earlier processes be awaited.
Ahlmad to report in respect of compliance of the last order.
Adjourned also for appearance of the complainant on 01.08.2012 as he is not present.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Harjase Mobiles Mall (P) Ltd. Vs. Munish Saini CC No.5807/11 07.06.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Complainant deposited the cost of Rs.1,000/- with the DLSA. Receipt taken on record.
He submits that he has already filed process fee.
However, there is no compliance of the last order by the Ahlmad.
Ahlmad shall make an explanation in this respect.
Last order be complied with on the earlier PF for 10.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neelam Bali CC No.4901/10 07.06.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
He submits that he has already filed the process fee. However, there is no report in respect of compliance of the last order.
Ahlmad shall make an explanation in this respect.
Last order be complied with on earlier PF for 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Tarun Composites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Design Edge Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.6428/11
07.06.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the AR alongwith a copy of some receipt issued by Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
Exemption is only allowed subject to furnishing of complete medical documents.
Ld. Counsel submits that he has already filed necessary process fee. However, there is no compliance of previous order. Even the earlier process has not been received back till date. Be awaited.
In the meantime, last order be complied with on earlier PF for 19.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Sanjay Sharma Vs. Narender Singh Tanwar CC No.2557/10 07.06.2012 Statement of DW1 Narender Singh Tanwar, accused, S/o M.C. Tanwar, aged about 46 years, R/o WZ-45-C/1, Rattan Park, Near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi-110015. On S.A. I had issued a blank Cheque bearing No.161224 in the year 2008 without date amounting to Rs. 5,000/- (in figures only) which bears my signature to Mr. Naresh Sharma. Counter Foil Exh.DW1/1 (OSR) which bears the entries of Cheque Book is filed on record today. I had no concern for dealing of any kind with Sanjay Sharma (complainant) or Sanjay Kumar. The said cheque Exh.CW1/A was issued in the year 2008. I had issued the said cheque without date, without mention of any name in the "pay to column" and without mention of amount in words. Complainant and Naresh Sharma have cheated, misappropriated, made alterations and interpolations in the cheque in question without my knowledge and consent to extort huge amount of money from me. The complainant has interpolated digit eight prefixed before digit Rs.5000/- in the digit column of the cheque. I have been falsely dragged in the present case. I am not deposing falsely.
XXXXX by Mr. Sumit Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
It is correct that the cheque in question Exh.CW1/A bears my signature. It is also correct that the cheque in question has been given by me from my Cheque Book and is from my account. I do not know Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that I do not know Sanjay Kumar Sharma. It is correct that Naresh Sharma and Sanjay Kumar Sharma reside in the same house. I never visited the house of Sanjay Kumar Sharma or Naresh Sharma but I used to visit their shop. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to this aspect and I regularly visited their house. It is wrong to suggest that I required money in February 2009. (Vol. I was in need of money in the year 2008). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that I required money in 2008 and not in 2009. In the year 2008-2009, I used to supply goods to the shops in the market. I was in need of money for my work. It is wrong to suggest that I approached the complainant in February 2009 and requested for a friendly loan of Rs.1 lac and also assured him to return the money within one month. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant told me that he can give me the sum of Rs.85,000/- only and gave me a sum of Rs.85,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that I did not return the amount taken from the complainant and after repeated visits of the complainant to my house on 20.05.2009 I gave a Cheque of Rs.85,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque in question was duly filled in and none of the column was blank. I cannot say whether Sanjay Kumar and Sanjay Sharma are one and the same persons. It is wrong to suggest that complainant again visited me in June 2009 and informed me about the dishonour of the cheque in question and that I told him to deposit it again after few days. The address on the envelope and Register AD Exh.CW1/G is not mine and is wrong. My correct address is WZ-45-C/1, Rattan Park, New Delhi-110015. It is wrong to suggest that address House No.45-C/1, Rattan Park, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and WZ-45-C/1, Rattan Park, Near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi-110015 are the same and belong to me. It is wrong to suggest that I have intentionally refused to receive the Registered AD and envelope Exh.CW1/G. It is wrong to suggest that I have become dishonest and I am not willing to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- and I am raising a false defence. No other case U/s 138 NI Act is pending against me. All other cases have been compromised. The Counter Foil Exh.DW1/1 is filled by me in my own handwriting. I do not have any bank pass book and statement of account which confirm entries in the counter foil filed by me today. (Vol. I have not brought the bank pass book and statement of account today but I can bring the same on the next date). It is wrong to suggest that the counter foil is false and is manipulated. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that the complainant has interpolated digit eight prefixed before digit Rs.5000/- in the digit column of the cheque. I have been falsely dragged in the present case. I am not deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely stated that Complainant has cheated, misappropriated, made alterations and interpolations in the cheque in question without my knowledge and consent to extort huge amount of money from me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi Statement of DW1 Narender Singh Tanwar, accused, S/o M.C. Tanwar, aged about 46 years, R/o WZ-45-C/1, Rattan Park, Near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi-110015. On S.A. I close my defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Sanjay Sharma Vs. Narender Singh Tanwar CC No.2557/10 07.06.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Accused has moved an application U/s 315 Cr.P.C. Allowed.
Accused examined and cross-examined. Discharged.
DE closed.
Put up for arguments on 02.07.2012 at request of ld. counsel for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.06.2012
Mohan Lal Vs. Sanjiv Arora
CC No.2116/10
07.06.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Ahlmad has made a report that they could not send the process to the concerned police station. However, there is no explanation why they could not send the same to the police station.
It appears that the office does not want to reform itself.
Ahlmad shall made an explanation why he could not send the process to the concerned police station.
In the meantime, process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued for 07.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Pankaj Sethi Vs. Rajeev Kumar Kumra CC No.6504/12 07.06.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
He is again seeking time on the ground that AR has left the company.
It appears that on the last two dates exemption was sought on behalf of the AR and today even again adjournment is being sought.
Since the matter is listed for pre-summoning evidence, one more opportunity is given to the complainant, however, subject to a cost of Rs.400/- to be deposited with DLSA within one week.
List on 30.07.2012 at request of ld. counsel for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Ram Pal Singh Vs. Shri Vats Rathi & Anr.
CC No.4577/10
07.06.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused on Memo of Appearance.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he is out of India.
Bailable Warrant also received back unexecuted with similar report.
One opportunity is given to the accused to appear.
A cost of Rs.10,000/- is also imposed upon the accused.
Whether the accused is out of India or not is not a concern for the court and if accused was out of India, he could have instructed his counsel to participate in the proceedings.
Only since no participation has been made by the ld. counsel for the accused, matter has to be adjourned. Therefore, adjournment cost is imposed.
To be listed on 16.08.2012 for appearance of accused and framing of notice.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Satish Khandelwal Vs. Ramesh Tiwari CC No.6364/11 07.06.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
NBW received back unexecuted with a report gone to UP.
There is no application for cancellation of NBW.
Complainant is again reiterating that on the last date accused refused to appear with a statement that Jo hoga dekha jayega, whereas complainant had made a request to the accused.
I consider that there was no justification for the accused no to appear or not to remain present in the court on the last date. As such accused be taken into custody.
It may be noted that the case does not fall U/s 436(1) Cr.P.C. as accused had already executed bail bond and surety bond before the police official pursuant to a bailable warrant issued on 28.04.2012.
Be produced on 21.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Tecpro Paints Private Limited Vs. M/s Anand Auto Paints & Anr.
CC No.2660/1007.06.2012 Record of Plea and examination of accused Anand Aiswal, S/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad, aged about 30 years, R/o H.No.G-30, Shakur Pur, Delhi-110034 U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I do not want to plead guilty. I know the complainant. The Cheque in question Ex.CW1/6 is drawn on my bank account and bears my signature. However, other columns of the Cheque in question have not been filed in by me. I have given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the supply of goods. I have not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, the names and addresses appearing on legal demand notice and postal articles are correct and are mine. I cannot say whether sufficient funds were there in my bank account or not. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Tecpro Paints Private Limited Vs. M/s Anand Auto Paints & Anr.
CC No.2660/1007.06.2012 Record of Plea and examination of accused No.1 firm through accused No.2 Anand Aiswal, S/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad, aged about 30 years, R/o H.No.G-30, Shakur Pur, Delhi-110034 U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation of accused No.1 firm explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does not want to plead guilty. Accused No.1 firm knows the complainant. The Cheque in question Ex.CW1/6 is drawn on the bank account of accused No.1 firm and bears my signature. However, other columns of the Cheque in question have not been filed in by me. Accused No.1 firm has given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the supply of goods. Accused No.1 firm has not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, the names and addresses appearing on legal demand notice and postal articles are correct and are of accused No.1 firm. I cannot say whether sufficient funds were there in the bank account of accused No.1 firm or not. Accused No.1 firm has sufficient defence to make. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Santosh Jain Vs. Sanjay Sharma CC No.6365/11 07.06.2012 Record of Plea and examination of accused Sanjay Sharma, S/o Late Sh. B.N. Sharma, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.1780/7, Govind Puri, Extn., Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I do not want to plead guilty. I know the complainant. The Cheque in question is drawn on my bank account and bears my signature. Other columns of the Cheque in question have also been filed in by me. I have given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the supply of goods. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant. I admit that there was no sufficient funds in my account to honour the cheque. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Santosh Jain Vs. Sanjay Sharma CC No.6366/11 07.06.2012 Record of Plea and examination of accused Sanjay Sharma, S/o Late Sh. B.N. Sharma, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.1780/7, Govind Puri, Extn., Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I do not want to plead guilty. I know the complainant. The Cheque in question is drawn on my bank account and bears my signature. Other columns of the Cheque in question have also been filed in by me. I have given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the supply of goods. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant. I admit that there was no sufficient funds in my account to honour the cheque. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Santosh Jain Vs. Sanjay Sharma CC No.6367/11 07.06.2012 Record of Plea and examination of accused Sanjay Sharma, S/o Late Sh. B.N. Sharma, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.1780/7, Govind Puri, Extn., Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I do not want to plead guilty. I know the complainant. The Cheque in question is drawn on my bank account and bears my signature. Other columns of the Cheque in question have also been filed in by me. I have given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the supply of goods. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant. I admit that there was no sufficient funds in my account to honour the cheque. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Santosh Jain Vs. Sanjay Sharma CC No.6368/11 07.06.2012 Record of Plea and examination of accused Sanjay Sharma, S/o Late Sh. B.N. Sharma, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.1780/7, Govind Puri, Extn., Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I do not want to plead guilty. I know the complainant. The Cheque in question is drawn on my bank account and bears my signature. Other columns of the Cheque in question have also been filed in by me. I have given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the supply of goods. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant. I admit that there was no sufficient funds in my account to honour the cheque. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Tecpro Paints Private Limited Vs. M/s Anand Auto Paints & Anr.
CC No.2660/1007.06.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
His Plea and Examination recorded separately.
An application U/s 145(2) NI Act has been filed on behalf of the accused. Copy supplied to the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has no objection for the cross-examination.
Application is allowed.
List for cross-examination on 09.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Santosh Jain Vs. Sanjay Sharma CC No.6365/11, 6366/11, 6367/11 & 6368/11 07.06.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
His Plea and Examination recorded separately.
List for DE on 16.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Bio World Merchandising Vs. M/s Shekhawat Sales CC No.6585/12 07.06.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed his affidavit alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit taken on record as evidence is marked for identification as Mark-R. After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation, jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011) and cause of action, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 NI Act, 1881 is made out against the accused.
Summons be issued to the accused No.1 and 2 at the address available 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. P. C. Complainant shall take all necessary steps in this respect within 10 days sufficiently reasonable.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section 204(4) Cr. P. C 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 proceedings under summary trial procedure on 07.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s FAB India Vs. M/s Pearl Tent & Decorators CC No.6691/12 07.06.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed his affidavit alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit taken on record as evidence is marked for identification as Mark-R. After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation, jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011) and cause of action, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 NI Act, 1881 is made out against the accused.
Summons be issued to the accused Upendra Jain at the address available 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. P. C. Complainant shall take all necessary steps in this respect within 10 days sufficiently reasonable.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section 204(4) Cr. P. C 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 proceedings under summary trial procedure on 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Ramesh Chand Soni Vs. Jitender Pal Singh CC No.6621/12 07.06.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed his affidavit alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit taken on record as evidence is marked for identification as Mark-R. After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation, jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011) and cause of action, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 NI Act, 1881 is made out against the accused.
Summons be issued to the accused Jitender Pal Singh at the address available 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. P. C. Complainant shall take all necessary steps in this respect within 10 days sufficiently reasonable.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section 204(4) Cr. P. C 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 proceedings under summary trial procedure on 10.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Manoj Franklin Vs. Vinod Chaudhary CC No.6661/12 07.06.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed his affidavit alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit taken on record as evidence is marked for identification as Mark-R. After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation, jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011) and cause of action, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 NI Act, 1881 is made out against the accused.
Summons be issued to the accused Vinod Chaudhary at the address available 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. P. C. Complainant shall take all necessary steps in this respect within 10 days sufficiently reasonable.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section 204(4) Cr. P. C 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 proceedings under summary trial procedure on 07.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s ITJ Retails Private Limited Vs. Thakur Singh CC No.1126/10 & 5276/10 07.06.2012 Present: None.
These are two connected matters.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.06.2012
After lunch
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Affidavit of the AR filed. Copy supplied.
Adjourned for cross-examination as neither the ld. counsel for the complainant nor ld. main counsel for the accused is available.
List on 14.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.06.2012
Vishal Jain Vs. Shanu Mohammad
CC No.2364/10
07.06.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.06.2012
At 03.50 p.m.
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Till date accused has not deposited the cost.
Let Attachment Warrant for recovery of the cost which have not been paid by the accused be issued.
I have heard the ld. proxy counsel for the complainant. Accused is again not advancing arguments on the ground that his counsel is out of station.
It appears that accused has always adopted delaying tacticts in the present matter. No further opportunity can be given.
List for pronouncement of judgment on 22.06.2012. The Notice issued to the Doctor is unserved.
Let the Notice be issued to the Doctor to be executable through the concerned SHO.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia CC No.5204/10, 5222/10, 5211/10, 5224/10 & 5225/10 07.06.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
These are five connected matters.
Be awaited for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 At 03.55 p.m. Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Earlier accused was not appearing and now it 03.30 p.m. Adjourned for the purpose fixed on 08.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012 Avinash B. Chordia (HUF) Vs. Tushar Pannalal Sighvi CC No.1485/10 07.06.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
It appears that NBW was stayed on 02.06.2012.
Today accused has shown his medical documents. He is directed to file copy of complete set of medical documents.
In the circumstances, NBW is cancelled, however, with a warning to the accused that he shall remain present on each and every date.
It appears that matter is listed for final arguments vide order dated 05.12.2011. Accused has deposited the earlier cost of Rs.5,000/- with the DLSA. Receipt taken on record. However, accused is seeking sometime to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as directed vide the order dated 02.06.2011.
Interestingly, till date accused is not ready to advance arguments despite the fact that matter was directed to be listed for final arguments vide order dated 05.12.2011. I am primarily unable to understand the reasons. If accused fails to appear or on some occasions chose to send proxy counsel, the same is not the fault of the complainant. This is not an appropriate way on the part of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused assures that he will surely advance arguments.
List on 02.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.06.2012