Delhi District Court
M/S Pee Kay Enterprises vs M/S Ply Samrat (India) Pvt. Ltd on 15 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 114/19
CNR No. DLWT010027352019
1. M/s Pee Kay Enterprises
Through its Proprietor
Mr. Mulk Raj Ahuja
At SCO106 Sector16 Market,
Faridabad, Haryana
2. Mr. Mulk Raj Ahuja
SCO106, Sector16 Market,
Faridabad, Haryana ......... Revisionists
Versus
M/s Ply Samrat (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Bishal Jhawar
Having its registered office
At A41, WHS Kirti Nagar
New Delhi110015 ...... Respondent
Date of filing : 06.04.2019
Date of arguments : 15.04.2019
Date of order : 15.04.2019
ORDER
1. The revisionists have filed this criminal revision under Section 399 Cr.P.C. against an order dated 02.03.2019 CR No.114/19 M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ply Samrat (India) P Ltd. Page No. 1 of 6 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by Ms. Neha Pandey, Ld. MM (NI Act03) West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a complaint case bearing CC No. 24167/16, whereby the application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists was dismissed.
2. The brief facts, as set out in the present revision petition, are that respondent has filed a complaint case against the revisionists alleging that on 27.03.2012 various quantity costing Rs. 3,85,537/ delivered at the address of M/s Pee Kay Enterprises to the revisionists and bill bearing No. 5354 was raised by the respondent. On 04.05.2012 after talking to the revisionists, the cheque bearing No. 452658 of Rs. 3,85,537/ drawn on SBI, Neelam Bata Chowk, Faridabad was presented and the same was returned on 07.05.2012 with the returning memo "Funds Insufficient". A notice dated 06.06.2012 was sent, which was duly served upon the revisionists. Thereafter, a notice was framed by the Ld. Trial Court on 27.02.2012 and on 07.12.2017 the respondent / complainant was crossexamined and the complainant's evidence was closed on 05.05.2018. The statement of revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also recorded. On 03.11.2018, the Ld. Trial Court directed the revisionist to file an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. but on 10.01.2019 DE of the revisionist was closed. On 28.02.2019 an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was dismissed by CR No.114/19 M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ply Samrat (India) P Ltd. Page No. 2 of 6 the learned trial Court. The revisionists are aggrieved by the impugned order on the grounds among others that order dated 02.03.2019 is based on conjectures and surmises. The learned trial Court failed to consider the gravity of the case. It is very essential to grant and provide opportunity to the opposite party to disprove the case.
3. Notice of this revision petition was issued to respondent. TCR was summoned and received. Reply to the present revision petition not filed. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionists argued that revisionist changed his counsel who inspected the court file and found that the DE was closed on 10.01.2019 and thereafter the application u/s 315 CrPC was filed. The Ld. Trial Court did not consider the gravity of the case. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further argued that to disprove the case of the respondent/complainant and for the just adjudication of the case, one final opportunity may be given to the revisionist.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that on 28.01.2019, the case was listed for final arguments but main counsel for the accused / revisionist was not present for arguments. On 06.02.2019, the counsel for the revisionist/accused again sought time for final arguments. On CR No.114/19 M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ply Samrat (India) P Ltd. Page No. 3 of 6 28.02.2019, the counsel for the accused moved an application u/s 315 CrPC to examine accused as defence witness and the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dt. 02.03.2019. The revisionist sought mediation but did not bother for it. Almost seven years have been passed and the matter is still being contested. The revisionist was supposed to go in revision against the order dt. 10.01.2019 and not against the impugned order dt. 02.03.2019 which is not bad in the eyes of law. In support of submissions, the learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Judgment in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. Naresh Gupta - Crl. M.C. 3311 of 2007 decided on 27.11.2007 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. Perusal of the trail court record reveals that complainant's evidence was closed on 21.03.2018 and statement of accusedtherein u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 27.06.2018. Thereafter, on 03.11.2018 the Ld. MM directed the counsel for the accusedtherein to file an application u/s 315 CrPC to examine the accusedtherein and any other witness before the next date i.e. 10.01.2019. However, on 10.01.2019, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted before the Ld. Trial Court that he does not wish to lead DE and accordingly, the DE stood closed and matter was listed for final arguments for 28.01.2019. On 28.01.2019, the accused / revisionist did not appear and an exemption application for accused was moved and part CR No.114/19 M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ply Samrat (India) P Ltd. Page No. 4 of 6 arguments on behalf of the complainant were heard on that day. On 06.02.2019, Ld. Counsel for the accused filed his vakalatnama and sought time to address final arguments and last and final opportunity was granted to the accused to address final arguments for 28.02.2019. However, on 28.02.2019, counsel for the accused / revisionist moved an application u/s 315 CrPC to examine the accused as defence witness, which was vehemently opposed by the complainant's counsel on the ground that the stage of filing of the said application has passed since the DE was closed on 10.01.2019.
7. Vide the impugned order dt. 02.03.2019, the Ld. Trial court observed that the matter was listed for final arguments and then the accused cannot lead his evidence to delay the matter and also the same court has no power to recall its earlier order. Considering the judgment, relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Subramaniam Sethu Raman Vs. State of Maharashtra, Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal, Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai Vs. State of Gujrat, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application being not maintainable at that stage. In view of the reasons mentioned in the revision petition, facts and circumstances of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists and the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the accused / revisionist was at liberty and had sufficient CR No.114/19 M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ply Samrat (India) P Ltd. Page No. 5 of 6 opportunities to file the application u/s 315 CrPC but he failed to do so, meaning thereby, the revisionist was neither bothering nor interested for the same. The conduct of the accused/ revisionist shows that he wants to delay the matter, which is already pending for a long time. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid impugned order dt.02.03.2019 of the Ld. MM. Thus, there is no such valid, genuine or bona fide reason found for setting aside the said impugned order passed by the Ld. MM 03/NI Act/ West, THC, Delhi. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
on this day 15th of April 2019 District & Sessions Judge/(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No.114/19 M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ply Samrat (India) P Ltd. Page No. 6 of 6