Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Narula vs Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. & Ors." on 30 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.56482/2016
Sanjeev Narula,
Ex. Managing Director of
M/s Lilliput Kidswear Ltd.,
Having its office at:
D95, Oklha Industrial Area,
Phase1, New Delhi - 110020.
R/o E109, Greater KailashII,
PhaseI, New Delhi - 110048. .....Petitioner.
V E R S U S
M/s Woodcraft Furnishers,
Office : Plot No.59,
W.H.S. Furniture Block,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi - 110015. .....Respondent.
Date of filing of appeal : 23.12.2016.
Date of arguments : 25.03.2017.
Date of judgment : 30.03.2017.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by Ld. MM (N.I. Act), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a complaint case filed U/s 138 N.I. Act bearing CC No.4852/1/15 titled as M/s Woodcraft Furnishers Vs. Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. & Ors.", whereby summons were issued to the accused no.1 & 2 before Ld. Trial Court (revisionist herein), the revisionist has preferred the present petition on 23.12.2016. Alongwith the petition, the revisionist has also moved an application U/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present petition.
Sanjeev Narula Vs. M/s Woodcrafts Furnishers (CR No.56482/2016) Page No.1 of pages 5
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who put its appearance before the Court through Counsel and filed the reply to the instant petition and also of the application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, filed by the revisionist.
3. Before coming to the main petition, the application for condonation of delay is to be considered first.
4. In the said application, the revisionist has stated that petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by Ld. MM (N.I. Act), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a complaint case filed U/s 138 N.I. Act bearing CC No.4852/1/15 titled as M/s Woodcraft Furnishers Vs. Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. & Ors., with the delay of 220 days. The complainant has earlier filed 24 complaint cases on the same grounds against the petitioner and in the above said complaint case filed U/s 138 N.I. Act, petitioner was summoned vide order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the court of Sh. Satveer Singh Lamba, Ld. MM (N.I. Act), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 03.06.2013, petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi interalia submitting that an offence U/s 138 N.I. Act was not made out as essential ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act were not satisfied. Subsequently, complaint case was return from Tis Hazari Courts due to want of territorial jurisdiction, in compliance the judgment titled Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. delivered on 01.08.2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 2287/ 2009. The petition was withdrawn by the counsel for petitioner for want of filing in appropriate jurisdiction on 31.03.2015. The said complaint was refiled by the complainant at Saket Courts and same was assigned to the Court of Ld. MM (N.I. Act), Saket Courts, New Delhi. Meanwhile complaint case was again transferred to the Court in Tis Hazari Courts in Sanjeev Narula Vs. M/s Woodcrafts Furnishers (CR No.56482/2016) Page No.2 of pages 5 compliance of Negotiable Instrument Amendment Act and matter was assigned to Ld. Trial Court, who took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and issued fresh summons to accused no.1 & 2 (including revisionist herein) vide impugned order dated 18.02.2016. Being aggrieved from the summoning order, petitioner herein filed the instant revision petition but with the delay of 220 days. However, as the revision were filed earlier but same were withdrawn. Further present petition could not be filed on time as there are 24 cases filed by the complainant and were listed on every single day and counsel could not found record. The delay in filing the petition is due to the reason that counsel for accused/petitioner shifted his offence from E39, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi - 110028 to A12, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi110025 and inadvertently old record of the present petitioner in earlier matters were misplaced due to shifting of the office and counsel for petitioner was tracing the records in courts and due to which delay of 220 days is caused in filing the petition. Further delay in filing the instant appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to aforesaid reasons. It is prayed that delay in filing the instant petition may be condoned in the interest of justice.
In its reply to the application U/s 5 of Condonation of Delay, it has been submitted that the present application is not maintainable as it does not disclose any genuine reason for delay in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner does not take the law of limitation seriously and is only concerned about seriousness of setting criminal law into motion against him by the competent Court of law. Admittedly, there is a delay of 220 days and delay of each day has to be explained but petitioner failed to do so. The reason cited for delay in filing the revision petition is vague and without any documentary evidence. The reason of delay has been shown as shifting of the office of lawyer without even naming the Sanjeev Narula Vs. M/s Woodcrafts Furnishers (CR No.56482/2016) Page No.3 of pages 5 lawyer and without even mentioning the dates when such office was shifted.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me in respect of the application filed U/s 5 of Limitation Act and also carefully perusing the entire material placed on record including the Trial Court Record, I am of the considered opinion that the application as filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the instant petition is liable to fail. Firstly the instant petition has been filed after about 220 days of passing of impugned order and no plausible explanation regarding filing of instant petition so late has been tendered on behalf of petitioner. The plea taken by the petitioner that delay in filing the instant petition occurred due to shifting of the office of his counsel but no particular date/s when the office of his lawyer was shifted have been given in the application. If the lawyer was busy in shifting the office, it was the duty of the petitioner to let him know about the date and proceeding of his case but he failed to do so. Even for the sake of arguments if it is believed that his counsel was busy in shifting the office, then who stopped the petitioner for making regular inquiry about the status of the case pending before Ld. Trial Court particularly in the circumstances, when admittedly various litigations were pending between the parties. Petitioner kept on waiting for about 220 days to file the instant petition and no cogent and plausible reason for the said delay has been tendered on record. The law demands that one should remain diligent and vigil towards it's/his/her right. Further it is well settled law that for getting the delay condoned, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved person/party to explain the delay of each and every day. In the instant case, what to talk about the explanation tendered regarding delay of day to day, the explanation furnished in support of the revision petition is Sanjeev Narula Vs. M/s Woodcrafts Furnishers (CR No.56482/2016) Page No.4 of pages 5 neither plausible nor cogent.
6. In Bhaktipada Majhi Vs. SubDivisional Officer, Kalna and Ors., AIR 1971 Cal 204, the Hon'ble Court while setting aside order condoning delay held that "I find, that in utter carelessness and callousness the petition for condonation of delay has been drafted wherein no cause, not to speak of any sufficient cause, has been made out."
In P.K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (1998) 120 P.L.R. 605 (S.C), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds." In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that "reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer's office and inquired about the case."
7. Thus I find no merits in the application for condonation of delay. As such, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. In view of dismissal of application of condonation of delay, the petition, as filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable being time barred. Resultantly, the instant petition is also dismissed.
8. TCR alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
9. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR1)
Court on 30 March, 2017) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
th
Judge (NDPS) (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Sanjeev Narula Vs. M/s Woodcrafts Furnishers (CR No.56482/2016) Page No.5 of pages 5