Delhi District Court
Real Address vs The State on 18 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Rev. No.05/2023
CIS No. DLNE01-000063-2023
In the matter of:
Ms. Bhawna,
Proprietor of M/s Shree Sai Electronics
As per the complaint
At:- A-117, Khasra No.160/3, & 161/3,
Gali No.3, Adarsh Market,
Main Yamuna Vihar Road,
Near Ghonda Chowk, North Ghonda,
Delhi-110053
REAL ADDRESS
D-7, Yamuna Vihar Road,
North Ghonda, Delhi-110053. .........Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2. Sh. Manmeet Kumar
Proprietor of M/s Raj Kumar Electronics (India)
E-4, Prajapati Market, Main Road, Dayalpur,
Karawal Nagar, Opposite Government School,
Delhi-110094. .........Respondents
Date of registration of revision petition: 07.01.2023
Date when revision was received by this Court: 10.01.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments: 17.01.2023
Date of pronouncement of order: 18.01.2023
Memo of appearance: Digitally
signed by
Sh. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate for the revisionist. PRAVEEN
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
Sh. P.C. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2. KUMAR Date:
2023.01.18
14:53:50
+0530
CR No.5/2023 Bhawna Vs. The State & Anr. Page 1/6
JUDGMENT:
1. The present criminal revision has been filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') challenging the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Ld. MM N.I. Act (Digital court), NorthEast District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CC No.35/21, PS Bhajanpura titled as 'Manmeet Kumar Vs. Bhawna', Proprietor of M/s Shree Sai Electronics whereby Trial Court closed the defence evidence after failing of the revisionist to take steps for summoning the witness.
2. The respondent no.1 being State who is a proforma party. BRIEF FACTS:
3. The respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent' for the sake of convenience) filed a complaint under section 138 read with section 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I. Act') against the revisionist. In discharge of her liability revisionist issued a cheque bearing No.216463 dated 24.11.2020 for an amount of Rs.10,98,785/ in favour of the respondent. The cheque when presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was dishonored with remarks 'payment stopped by the drawer' vide return memo dated 07.12.2020. The revisionist, despite service of legal notice dated 10.12.2020, failed to make payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period as prescribed under the law. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint against revisionist. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR PRAVEEN Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.18
14:54:03
+0530
CR No.5/2023 Bhawna Vs. The State & Anr. Page 2/6
4. Trial Court record reveals that on 02.03.2021, notice under section 251 CrPC was served upon the revisionist and, thereafter, an application under section 145 (2) of the N. I. Act was moved on behalf of the revisionist seeking permission of the court to cross examine respondent's witness and the same was allowed on 06.03.2021. The respondent examined four witnesses including himself in support of his complaint and CE was closed on 06.07.2022. On 16.07.2022, statement of revisionist was recored under section 313 Cr.P.C. Revisionist moved an application under section 315 Cr.P.C alongwith list of witnesses and same was allowed on 21.07.2022. Revisionist got himself examined as DW1 and one another witness as DW2. On 07.09.2022, the trial court allowed witness i.e Pramod Garg mentioned at serial no.1 in the list of witnesses to be summoned upon filing of PF within three working days by the revisionist returnable on 30.09.2022. However, no steps were taken by the revisionist. Again on 21.11.2022, similar order was passed by the Trial Court for summoning of witness at serial no.1. As the revisionist failed to take steps to summon the said witness, the Trial Court closed defence evidence and fixed the case for final arguments for 20.01.2023.
5. Revisionist, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.12.2022, has filed the present revision petition. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: Digitally signed by PRAVEEN PRAVEEN KUMAR
6. The impugned order dated 21.12.2022 is under challenge KUMAR Date:
2023.01.18 14:54:14 +0530 CR No.5/2023 Bhawna Vs. The State & Anr. Page 3/6 before this Court and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein-below:
"...A witness mentioned at sl. no.1 in the list of witnesses fild on behalf of accused had been directed to be summoned on filing of PF by the accused. However, no PF was filed by the accused.
Proxy counsel for accused submits that the main counsel was under the impression that court notice shall be sent to the witness and he need not file the PF for the same.
Perusal of record sows that there was specific directions for the accused to file the PF on the LDOH for summoning the witness and Ld. counsel for the accused was duly present alongwith the accused so I fail to understand how the confusion occurred to Ld. counsel for the accused. The conduct of Ld. counsel for the accused shows that he deliberately did not file the PF to delay the trial and it may also be the reason that Ld. counsel for the accused as well as accused do not want to examine the said witness on behalf of the accused, therefore, they did not file the PF for summoning the witness. Today also, main counsel for accused is not present despite the fact today's date and time has been given as per his convenience of the counsel.
Keeping in view the above made observations as well as the list of witnesses filed on behalf of accused, which does not mention any other witness to be examined, DE stands closed..."
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT:
7. On notice, respondent made appearance through counsel and contested the present revision petition.
ARGUMENTS: Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
8. I have heard Sh. Sunil Kumar Verma, Ld. counsel for the PRAVEEN KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.18 14:54:31 +0530 CR No.5/2023 Bhawna Vs. The State & Anr. Page 4/6 revisionist and Sh. P.C. Joshi, Ld. counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that in case the witness mentioned at serial no.1 of the list of witnesses is not allowed to be examined, interest of the revisionist would be gravely affected and in order to elicit the truth, examination of the said witness is necessary. It is contended that steps could not be taken by the counsel for the revisionist as he was under the impression that court notice would be issued to the witness by the court. It is contended that a litigant should not be allowed to suffer on account of negligence by his counsel. Lastly, it is contended that a single opportunity be granted to the revisionist to examine the said witness.
9. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. counsel for the respondent that Ld. MM has rightly closed the defence evidence on 21.12.2022 as despite sufficient time and opportunities given to the revisionist, she failed to examine said witness. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
10. I have considered submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the Trial Court record.
11. The record shows that the respondent has himself examined four witnesses in support of his complaint. The revisionist wants to examine a witness to prove that legal notice was not properly served upon her. In my opinion, non examination of the said witness would cause serious prejudice to the right of the revisionist. The defence evidence should Digitally signed by PRAVEEN normally be closed only when the conduct of the accused is PRAVEEN KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.18 14:54:41 +0530 CR No.5/2023 Bhawna Vs. The State & Anr. Page 5/6 intentional and deliberate. A party should not be penalized for negligence on the part his counsel. CONCLUSION:
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of justice, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be given one more opportunity to examine the aforesaid witness. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the revisionist is hereby allowed. Revisionist is given one opportunity to examine witness mentioned at serial no.1 of the list of witnesses i.e Pramod Garg subject to cost of Rs.5,000/ to be deposited with Advocates Welfare Fund, Bar Association Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Revisionist shall be given one single opportunity to examine aforesaid witness and in case she fails to examine the said witness on the date before the concerned Ld. MM, opportunity to examine the said witness shall automatically stand closed. With these observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of.
13. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Digitally signed COURT ON 18 th JANUARY, 2023 by PRAVEEN KUMAR PRAVEEN Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.18
14:54:52
+0530
(PRAVEEN KUMAR)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH-EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CR No.5/2023 Bhawna Vs. The State & Anr. Page 6/6