Delhi District Court
Mrs. Shikha Tiwari vs . on 10 November, 2016
Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs.
Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH DUDANI, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) CBI-I DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI
1. Mrs. Shikha Tiwari
W/o Sh. Piyush Tiwari
R/o D-203, Sector 47,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
2. Sh. Piyush Tiwari
S/o Late Sh. P.C. Tiwari
R/o D-203, Sector 47
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
......... Petitioners/Revisionists
VERSUS
Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
...........Respondent
CR No. 440530/2016
Date of Institution 07.10.2016
Reserved for orders on 04.11.2016
Judgment announced on 10.11.2016
JUDGMENT
CA No:440530/2016 Page 1 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016
1. This is a revision petition under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by Ld. MM ( NI Act)-04, Dwarka Courts , New Delhi in criminal complaint case Nos. 7935/16 and 7988/16 to the extent by which notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. have been framed against the revisionists.
2. Briefly stated facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3. In the revision petition the revisionists have stated that revisionists are accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 in criminal complaint case nos. 7935/16 and 7988/16 titled as "M/s Reputed Real Estate Vs. Kindle Developers"
under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981.
4. It is stated in the revision petition that vide order dated 09.09.2016, Ld. MM was pleased to frame notices under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against the revisionists and the said notice has been framed in arbitrary manner.
5. It is further stated in the revision petition that on 09.09.2016 the proxy counsel for the accused no. 2 and 3 (revisionists herein) appeared before the Trial Court and stated that the main counsel is suffering from high fever and requested for adjourning the matter for a week and proxy counsel also filed an application under Section CA No:440530/2016 Page 2 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 219/220 Cr.P.C. for the single trial of the five complaints and the said application was taken on record and was allowed by Ld. MM and five cases pending between the parties were clubbed in two cases for the purposes of trial.
6. It is further stated in the revision petition that proxy counsel for accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionists herein) also informed the court that the main counsel wants to file an application for dropping of proceedings under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and wants to address arguments and in the circumstances, case be adjourned for making submissions on framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. but Ld. MM ignored the request made by proxy counsel and proceeded to frame notices against accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionists herein) .
7. It is stated that after framing of notice, Ld. MM compelled the revisionists to answer the questions at the time of framing of notice and the accused persons made request to Ld. MM that since they are unable to understand the questions and the significance of the proceedings, they needed the assistance and presence of their counsel. However, such request of accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionists herein) was rejected and Ld. MM was of the view that counsel is not required at the time of framing of notice.
8. It is stated in the revision petition that Ld. MM CA No:440530/2016 Page 3 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 has misconstrued the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. thereby holding that absence of the counsel is no ground for adjournment. It is stated that prejudice has been caused to revisionists as their counsel could not make submissions on the point of framing of notice .
9. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record.
10. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionists is that on 09.09.2016 the matter was fixed for appearance of accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionists herein) and for framing of notice and on that day accused no. 2 and 3 appeared in person along with one proxy counsel as main counsel for accused persons was suffering from high fever and application under Section 219/220 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of accused persons for consolidation of trial of five cases pending between the parties in respect of the same transactions and Ld. MM was pleased to pass order on the said application and was pleased to club CC nos. 7932/16, 7933/16 and 7934/16 for single trial and CC No. 7935/16 and 7988/16 for single trial.
11. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that since the case was fixed before the Trial Court for framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 and 3 wanted to make legal submissions before the court on the point of framing of CA No:440530/2016 Page 4 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., hence request for adjournment was made on behalf of accused no. 2 and 3 on the ground that main counsel is suffering from high fever and in the circumstances, the case may be adjourned for a week but Ld. MM did not consider the request as made by the accused persons and proceeded to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against accused no. 2 and 3.
12. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has further contended that in the Trial Court, there are three accused persons of which accused no. 1 is a company and notice has not been framed against accused no. 1 and the case before the Trial Court is still at the stage of framing of notice against accused no. 1 and no prejudice will be caused if the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 is set aside and revisionists are given opportunity to make submissions on the point of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C..
13. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that in the impugned order dated 09.09.2016, Ld. MM has been pleased to observe that there is no requirement of counsel at the time of framing of notice but the same is contrary to the well settled principles of law which grant right of hearing to the accused persons at the stage of framing of notice.
CA No:440530/2016 Page 5 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016
14. It is further contended on behalf of revisionists that Ld. MM has wrongly declined the request of accused persons for adjournment thereby stating that Section 309 Cr.P.C. states that absence of counsel is no ground for adjournment without appreciating the provisions as contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. .
15. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the conduct of the accused persons before the Trial Court would show that they have been trying to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity as on that day also the accused no. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 219/220 C.P.C. for clubbing of trial of five cases and if they intended to expedite the proceedings then they could have filed application under Section 251 Cr.P.C. also on the said date.
16. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the proceedings before the Trial Court on 09.09.2016 would also reveal that on that day only accused no. 2 and 3 appeared before the court and AR of accused no. 1 did not appear and that was with the view to cause delay in the proceedings.
17. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the proceedings of the Trial Court will also show that the different counsels were appearing and proxy counsel who CA No:440530/2016 Page 6 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 had appeared on 09.09.2016 had appeared for accused no. 2 and 3 on the previous dates also and in the circumstances, absence of main counsel was not a ground for adjournment.
18. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has contended in rebuttal that there is only one vakalatnama filed on record i.e. by him and proxy counsels who have put in appearance for accused persons had appeared on his behalf and proxy counsels were not well versed with the matter and could not have effectively submitted the arguments and his absence before the Trial Court on 09.09.2016 was not intentional but on account of high fever and that he had not appeared before any court during the period 08.09.2016 to 13.09.2016 on account of illness.
19. The revision petition arises out of the criminal complaint case No. 7935/16 and 7988/16 titled as "M/s Reputed Real Estate Vs. Kindle Developers" under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 filed by the complainant ( respondent herein) against M/s Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd. accused no. 1, Sh. Piyush Tiwari ( revisionist herein) accused no. 2, Smt. Shikha Tiwari ( revisionist herein) accused no. 3, Sh. Vipul Jain accused No. 4, Sh. Sanjay Nijhawan accused no. 5. The accused no. 1, 2 and 3 were ordered to be summoned CA No:440530/2016 Page 7 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 by Ld. MM ( NI ) Act-04 vide order dated 04.01.2016. The accused Shikha Tiwari aggrieved by the summoning order dated 04.01.2016 filed a revision petition against the said order of summoning which was dismissed by the Court of Special Judge, CBI ( PC Act), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 07.05.2016.
20. On 09.09.2016 the case before the Trial Court was listed for appearance of accused persons and for framing of notice and on that day AR of accused no. 1 Company was absent and accused no. 2 and 3 appeared in person along with proxy counsel and proxy counsel for the accused persons made request for adjournment as main counsel was not available and Ld. MM was pleased to observe that Section 309 Cr.P.C. states that absence of counsel is no ground for adjournment and accordingly adjournment was not allowed.
21. Section 309 Cr.P.C. reads as under :
Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.-
(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial CA No:440530/2016 Page 8 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 relates to an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
(2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: [ Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the CA No:440530/2016 Page 9 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 sentence proposed to be imposed on him.] [Provided also that -
(a) No adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) the fact that the pleader of the party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-
in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be ] Explanation 1. - If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2. - The terms on which an CA No:440530/2016 Page 10 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.
22. Section 309 Cr.P.C. is part of Chapter XXIV of Cr.P.C. pertaining to General Provisions As To Inquiries And Trials and intention of legislature in enacting section 309 Cr.P.C. is that proceedings in any inquiry or trial are not adjourned unnecessarily and are conducted expeditiously and as per Section 309 (2) Cr.P.C. , the absence of counsel on the ground that he is engaged in another court is not a ground for adjournment.
23. The plea which has been raised by the revisionists is that on 09.09.2016 a request for adjournment was not made on the ground that counsel for accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 is busy in some other court but request was made on the ground that counsel is suffering from high fever and is unable to attend the court and Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has contended that he is making statement at Bar that on account of illness, he has not attended any court during the period 08.09.2016 to 13.09.2016.
24. Another contention which has been raised on behalf of revisionists is that although on 09.09.2016 notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed against accused no. 2 and 3 but no notice under Section 251 CA No:440530/2016 Page 11 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 Cr.P.C. against accused no. 1 Company has been framed and case is still at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against accused no. 1 and Ld. Counsel for accused persons will submit arguments on the point of framing notice against accused no. 1 and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the complainant ( respondent herein) in case accused no. 2 and 3 are also allowed to make submissions on the point of framing of notice.
25. As per order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Trial Court, three accused persons i.e. M/s Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd. accused no. 1, Sh. Piyush Tiwari ( revisionist herein) accused no. 2, Smt. Shikha Tiwari ( revisionist herein) accused no. 3 have been ordered to be summoned to face trial in the same cases.
26. As per impugned order dated 09.09.2016 , notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed against accused no.2 and accused no. 3 only and the case was adjourned by Ld. MM ( NI Act)-04 for framing of notice against accused no. 1 company.
27. Section 251 Cr.P.C. provides that :
When in a summons -case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not CA No:440530/2016 Page 12 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 be necessary to frame a formal charge.
28. Section 223 Cr.P.C. provides as to what persons may be charged jointly.
29. Section 223(a) provides that persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of same transaction may be charged and tried together.
30. Although Section 223 Cr.P.C. pertains to the trial of warrant cases, however, the broad principles as contained therein regarding joint trial of persons accused of same offence committed in the course of the same transaction. are to be followed.
31. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has contended that at the time of framing of notice, opportunity has to be provided to accused persons for making their submissions and has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tanmay Mukhopadhyay Vs. State and Ors, MANU/DE/2452/2015, decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajeev Ranjan Sinha Vs. Sushil Kumar Saxena,MANU/DE/2774/2014,decision of Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad in Vijay Mallya Vs. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd., MANU/AP/2113/2014 and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Sudarsanam, Neelavathy and Subramania Naidu Vs. State, MANU/TN/0420/1987.
32. In Tanmay Mukhopadhyay Vs. State and Ors CA No:440530/2016 Page 13 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 ( supra) Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to hold :
3. In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar & Krishan Kumar ( supra) as referred to hereinabove, inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not exercised and petitioner is relegated to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.
and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking and reasoned order. At the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, trial court is not expected to function like a post office and to mechanically frame Notice, but is rather bound by law to apply its mind to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. Similar view has been already taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.K. Bhalla V. State and Others MANU/DE/2289/2011 : 180 ( 2011) DLT 219.
4. Needless to say, if the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner, then the decision of the Apex Court's in Adalat Prasad V. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. MANU/SC/0688/2004 :
CA No:440530/2016 Page 14 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 2004 (3) JCC 1347 : ( 2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against petitioner and if trial court chooses to proceed against petitioner, then petitioner will have the remedy as available in the law. It is so said because dropping of proceedings at Notice stage cannot possibly be equated with recalling of summoning order.
33. In Rajeev Ranjan Sinha Vs. Sushil Kumar Saxena ( supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold :
5. In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar's case ( supra) and Krishna Kumar Variar's case ( supra), and in view of the ground reality that this Court is being clogged by filing such petitions, it is the need of the hour to direct the petitioner to approach trial Court, so that such petitioners instead of straightaway rushing this Court ought to seek dropping of the proceedings by the trial court to ensure that summary trial in such like matters does not get unnecessarily delayed.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to trial Court to urge all the pleas taken herein CA No:440530/2016 Page 15 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 before learned trial Court at the time of hearing on notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. . In case the petitioner raises the pleas before the trial Court, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking order. It is settled law that the trial Court is not expected to function like post office and to mechanically frame notice, but is bound by law to apply its mind to find out whether prima facie case is made out against accused or not.
34. As per aforesaid decisions in Tanmay Mukhopadhyay Vs. State and Ors ( supra) Rajeev Ranjan Sinha Vs. Sushil Kumar Saxena ( supra), the accused is entitled to make submissions on the point of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C..
35. The plea which has been raised by the revisionists is that on 09.09.2016 their counsel was unwell and on that account he was not available and in these circumstances they could not make submissions before the Trial Court on the point of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
36. The Latin maxim audi alteram partem is one of the sancrosanct principles of Law and is a part of principles of natural justice which prohibits a judicial decision which impacts upon individual rights without giving all parties CA No:440530/2016 Page 16 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 in dispute a right to be heard and any law or procedure which violates the same cannot sustain on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness.
37. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 shows that accused persons had made a request for adjournment on the ground of absence of their counsel and Ld. MM was pleased to decline the said request stating that absence of the counsel is no ground for adjournment.
38. In Vijay Mallya Vs. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. ( supra) Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad has been pleased to hold :
13. From this, now so far as Section 205 Cr.P.C.
examination concerned, at the cost of repetition, the Apex Court in TGN Kumar (supra), more particularly at paras 7 to 9 categorically observed that, the discretion conferred on the Court to exempt the accused from personal appearance till such time the personal appearance is considered by the Court to be unnecessary during trial. Here from that observation now to consider once the accused is permitted through special vakalath under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. , the personal attendance required to be insisted is where necessary. So far as Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination CA No:440530/2016 Page 17 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 concerned, that too when the special vakalath holder is willing to answer the questions that are put to the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination, the learned Magistrate did not consider this aspect, even the expression of Apex Court in TGN Kumar ( supra) mandates that once permitted under Section 205 Cr.P.C. the personal appearance shall be exempted of course where not necessary during enquiry or trial.
14. Here when the special vakalath holder advocate is thereon permitted and he is willing to answer questions that are put to the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. as to whether he pleads guilty or enters his defence; there is practically no necessity in exercise of the judicial discretion for insisting personal appearance of the accused, so far as Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination concerned. Thereby, to that extent the trial court orders is not correct and requires to revise by sitting in revision within the scope of Section 397(1) read with 401 Cr.P.C. . Accordingly, the point No. 1 is answered.
39. In Sudarsanam, Neelavathy and Subramania CA No:440530/2016 Page 18 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 Naidu Vs. State ( supra), Hon'ble High Court of Madras has been pleased to hold :
12. It follows, therefore, that the trial court under such situations, has first to decide, whether factually, the prayer of the accused that the counsel has suddenly taken ill, is true or whether it is only an attempt to get an adjournment to protract the proceedings. If the Court feels that factually, the statement that the counsel has suddenly taken ill, is true and if the court finds, that ever thereafter, the accused has taken every steps within his powers, to engage another counsel and despite the same he had not succeeded and was forced to pray for an adjournment, the court has to give an adjournment. The second proviso to S. 309(2), Crl. P.C. , which lays down that no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining the witnesses who are in attendance also permits the Sessions Judge for special reasons to be recorded in writing to grant an adjournment, even when witnesses are in attendance. The section also provides, that in appropriate cases, adjournment could be granted, on payment of costs, either by the Prosecution or CA No:440530/2016 Page 19 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 by the accused. Under those circumstances, the mere fact that witnesses are in attendance, would not be a ground for refusing an adjournment and examining the witnesses when the accused are not defended by any counsel. As indicated earlier the question of adjournment would come in, only if the court is satisfied, that the request for adjournment is necessitated, by the sudden illness of the counsel.
13. In the instant case, facts are not seriously controverted. The petitioners had engaged a counsel ( Thiru Sam V. Chelliah) of their choice and even on 23rd December, 1986 a memo of appearance had been filed by the counsel on behalf of all the petitioners. The trial court also, had fixed the date of trial, well in advance. However, the counsel had suddenly taken ill on the last working day before the commencement of the trial. The counsel is from Madras and the trial was to be in Chengalpattu, which is about 56 KM from Madras. In a case calling for capital sentence and that too, arising out of dowry harassment, wherein an Assistant Public Prosecutor, had been specially appointed by the Government to assist the Public Prosecutor in the CA No:440530/2016 Page 20 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 Sessions Court, it was but natural for the petitioners, to desire to have a counsel of equal calibre, to effectively conduct their defence. It is also common knowledge that Advocates feel reluctant to accept briefs, without sufficient time to study the papers, receive instructions from clients and do justice to them in court, especially in a case calling for capital punishment. The petitioners have also sworn to an affidavit that, after the counsel took ill, the counsel suggested the names of a few Advocates whom they could contact and that they did contact those Advocates immediately and that those Advocates, could not accept the brief due to prior engagements. It was under those circumstances, that the petitioners, were forced to pray for adjournment of the case, even though the witnesses summoned for the day, were present. The trial court ought to have granted an adjournment, at least by requiring the petitioners to pay the costs incurred, in summoning the witnesses actually in attendance.
40. In Sundarsanam, Neelavathy and Subramania Naidu Vs. State (Supra), a request for adjournment was made before the Trial Court on the ground of illness of CA No:440530/2016 Page 21 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 counsel and Ld. Trial Court was pleased to decline the request for adjournment as witnesses were in attendance. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that under such circumstances, the trial court has first to decide, whether factually, the prayer of the accused that the counsel has suddenly taken ill, is true or whether it is only an attempt to get an adjournment to protract the proceedings and the question of adjournment would come in, only if the court is satisfied, that the request for adjournment is necessitated, by the sudden illness of the counsel and in appropriate cases, adjournment could be granted, on payment of costs.
41. It is pleaded by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that in the present case also request for adjournment was made as the counsel for accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionist herein) had fallen ill suddenly. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that previous conduct of the revisionists would reveal that they were trying to delay the matter and on 09.09.2016 also AR for accused no. 1 i.e. Company was not present and on that account notice could not be framed against accused no. 1. In case Ld. MM was of the view that request for adjournment has been made only to delay the case then appropriate observations to this effect could have been made but no observations have been made regarding any previous CA No:440530/2016 Page 22 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016 Shikha Tiwari & Anrs.
Vs. Reputed Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
CR No: 440530/2016 conduct of the accused persons in the impugned order dated 09.09.2016.
42. In the totality of the circumstances and also looking at the fact that notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is yet to be framed against accused no. 1, the part of the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 by which notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be framed against accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionist herein) separately, is set aside and consequently notices under Section 251 Cr.P.C. framed against accused no. 2 and 3 (revisionist herein) separately are also set aside.
43. As per Trial Court Record, the case before the Trial Court is fixed for 15.11.2016 and accused no. 2 and 3 ( revisionists herein) shall submit arguments before the Trial Court on the point of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. on 15.11.2016 or any other date convenient to Ld. MM. The revision petition stands disposed of.
44. Revision File be consigned to record room.
45. A copy of this order be sent to Trial Court for information and compliance and TCR be sent back.
Announced in the open (HARISH DUDANI) Court on 10.11.2016 Special Judge,( PC Act) CBI-I Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CA No:440530/2016 Page 23 of 23 D.O.O. 10.11.2016