Delhi District Court
Cr No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs . State & Amr. on 31 July, 2017
CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-FAST TRACK
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
CR No. 329/2017
CC No. 4996415/2016
Under Section 138 N.I. Act
Surjeet Kaur
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o H.No. B-49, Avantika
Sector-1, Rohini
New Delhi ............ Revisionist
Versus
1.State.
2. Sh. Ramesh Solanki
S/o Sh. Sada Ram
R/o H.No. WZ-621, Palam Village,
New Delhi -45 .......... Respondents
Date of institution 22.07.2017
Judgment reserved on 28.07.2017
Judgment Pronounced on 31.07.2017
Order Page 1 of 11
CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
ORDER
1. Present Criminal Revision petition U/s.397 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 07.07.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court thereby dismissing an application filed by the revisionist U/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of complainant(CW1) & DW2 Suresh.
2. Facts giving rise to present petition are that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint case U/s 138 N.I. Act against revisionist on allegations that revisionist issued a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs in favor of respondent no.2 which got dishonored and despite demand notice dated 06.05.2010, revisionist failed to make the payment. After conclusion of evidence of both the parties, matter was fixed for final arguments, however, revisionist filed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of respondent no. 2 and DW2 for further cross-examination which was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court by holding that the application of revisionist was devoid of merits.
Order Page 2 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
3. Impugned order has been assailed on the ground that while dismissing the application Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist is an illiterate lady and except to sign in Gurmukhi, she does not know, reading or writing despite this fact the cheque in question is filled in English. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 during his cross-examination deposed that he can produce income-tax return but Ld. Trial Court did not direct the production of ITR Record as to clarify whether the amount was given to revisionist or not. It is further submitted that the previous counsel failed to ask material questions from DW2 and in these facts, further cross-examination of complainant/respondent no. 2 and DW2 can elucidate true facts and as such, Ld. Trial Court committed an error while declining the application of revisionist. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that dismissal of application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist would suffer irreparable loss and injury to her which would result in injustice.
Order Page 3 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/ complainant has submitted that revisionist is bent upon to cause delay in completion of trial and for this reason, the present petition and the application before Ld. Trial Court was filed. It is submitted that revision petition is sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard rival submissions and have gone through Trial Court record.
6. Relevant extract of judicial proceedings before Trial Court is summarized as under:-
Date Proceedings 08.06.2012 Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. Adjourned for DE. 22.08.2012 Accused not prepared DE. Adjourned for DE subject to costs. 27.09.2012 Ld. PO on leave. Application U/s 315 Cr.P.C filed 17.10.2012 DW1 examined-in-chief, cross-examination deferred 29.11.2012 Referred to Mediation Order Page 4 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
10.12.2012 Matter received back unsettled. Put up for DE 18.12.2012 Ld PO is on leave.
16.01.2013 DW1 partly cross-examined, adjourned for DE for want of documents 28.01.2013 DW1 filed documents, adjourned for DE 18.02.2013 Accused (DW1) absent, exemption filed. Adjourned for DE 27.02.2013 Application U/s 311 Cr.P.C filed by accused to examine DW2, adjourned for DE 12.03.2013 Present None. Lawyer's abstaining work. 04.04.2013 Accused (DW1) absent, exemption filed. Adjourned for DE 18.04.2013 Accused seeks adjournment that her counsel met with an accident. Adjourned for DE.
08.05.2013 None for complainant. Adjourned for DE. 30.05.2013 Counsel for complainant not available due to accident of his daughter. Adjourned for DE.
21.06.2013 No DW present. DW-2 summoned for DE. 12.07.2013 DW-2 is present. Accused seeks adjournment. Adjourned for DE.
18.07.2013 DW2 examined & discharged. Put up for remaining DE. 26.07.2013 Application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused for cross-
examination of DW-2. Application allowed. 14.08.2013 Adjournment sought by complainant on the ground of revision petition pending before Hon'ble High Court. 22.08.2013 DW-2 not present. Adjourned for DE. 13.09.2013 File before Hon'ble High Court. 27.09.2013 File before Hon'ble High Court. 23.10.2013 File before Hon'ble High Court. 03.04.2014 File before Hon'ble High Court. 04.07.2014 File received from Hon'ble High Court. Adjourned for DE. 20.08.2014 DW-2 re-examined, further examination deferred. 10.09.2014 DW-2 not present. Matter adjourned. Order Page 5 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
10.10.2014 DW-2 not present. Matter adjourned. 26.11.2014 DW-2 further cross-examined. Her cross-examination deferred for want of documents.
14.01.2015 Accused not present, DW-2 present. Her cross-examination deferred.
12.02.2015 DW-2 further cross-examined. Accused moved an application U/s 65 read with Section 74 & 79 and U/s 45 of I.E. Act.
18.03.2015 Lawyers abstaining from work.
22.04.2015 Both parties sought adjournment. Adjourned for arguments on application.
28.05.2015 Adjourned for reply & arguments on application. 03.07.2015 Complainant sought time to file reply. Matter adjourned. 09.07.2015 Matter transferred.
10.07.2015 Application of accused U/s 65 I.E. Act dismissed and U/s 45 I.E. Act allowed.
30.07.2015 Accused absent. Issue NBWs.
02.09.2015 Adjourned for DE. Liberty granted to accused to examine hand-writing expert.
30.10.2015 Ld. PO on leave. Application for summoning witness filed. 11.12.2015 An application filed U/s 243 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused for production of documents by recalling DW2. Application dismissed. At request, last opportunity granted to accused to lead DE.
15.01.2016 Order dated 11.12.2015 challenged by accused before Court of Ld. ASJ. Matter adjourned.
03.03.2016 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 31.03.2016 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 20.05.2016 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 03.08.2016 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 04.10.2016 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 05.12.2016 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 23.12.2016 Accused absent. BWs issued.
Order Page 6 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
11.01.2017 Adjourned. Awaiting orders from Sessions Court. 02.02.2017 Ld. PO on leave.
22.02.2017 Accused absent. Issue NBWs.
16.03.2017 Matter at stage of final arguments, Legal aid counsel is provided to accused.
29.03.2017 Accused absent. Issue NBWs.
19.04.2017 Adjourned for final arguments. 04.05.2017 Accused filed instant application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. 18.05.2017 Adjourned for orders on 07.07.2017 07.07.2017 Application dismissed. Adjourned for final arguments.
7. After going through above stated proceedings, it can be noticed that on 08.06.2012 matter was fixed for DE. Revisionist after seeking adjournments filed an application U/s 315 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed by Ld Trial Court. After this, revisionist filed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C seeking to examine DW2 Suresh. That application was allowed and then after examining DW2, revisionist filed another application U/s 311 Cr.P.C this time seeking to cross-examine DW2. The said application was also allowed.
Order Page 7 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
8. Trial Court Record shows that revisionist filed other two applications U/s 65 read with Section 74 & 79 Indian Evidence Act and U/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act. Application U/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act was allowed and revisionist was permitted to examine expert evidence to prove his defence that cheque in question was not filled by her. But revisionist did not examine any witness even after her application was allowed. Rather another application was filed U/s 243 Cr.P.C. on behalf of revisionist for production of documents by recalling DW2. That application was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court on 11.12.2015.
9. As far as cross-examination of DW2 is concerned, it is evident from record that the said witness was recalled for cross- examination on application of revisionist. Time and again DW2 appeared and she was cross-examined by Ld Counsel for the revisionist at length.
Order Page 8 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
10. It is well settled law that power conferred under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure must be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. In present case, proceedings before Ld Trial Court shows that complainant was cross-examined at length by Counsel for revisionist and revisionist despite moving earlier applications U/s 311 Cr.P.C never sought to recall complainant and it is only when matter was fixed for final arguments, revisionist filed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C for recalling of complainant. Similarly, DW2 who was recalled for further examination on application of revisionist has been cross-examined by Ld Counsel for the revisionist at length and thereafter application of revisionist to recall DW2 was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court on 11.12.2015.
11. Quick and prompt trial of criminal offences is the need of the hour to repose faith of the people in judiciary. For this Order Page 9 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
purpose the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is an important safeguard. The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the constitution of India. It declares that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law." Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in Babu Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1978 SC 527 remarked, "Our justice system even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to "fair trial"
whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings."
12. In present case, revisionist after matter was fixed for DE in 2012 filed six applications. Three under 311 Cr.P.C, an application U/s 65 read with Section 74 & 79 Indian Evidence Act, U/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act and U/s 243 Cr.P.C. Complainant and DW2 stands already cross-examined at length and revisionist her self did not examine expert evidence to prove her defence despite number of opportunities given to her. Order Page 10 of 11 CR No: 329/2017 Surjeet Kaur vs. State & Amr.
13. In these facts, I do not find that Ld. Trial Court committed any material irregularity while dismissing the application of revisionist to recall witnesses. Time and again, revisionist used delay tactics by moving one application or the other. Record shows that both complainant and DW2 have been cross-examined at length. There are no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition stands dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of the order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 31st day of July, 2017.
(GAUTAM MANAN) ASJ (SFTC) /SOUTH WEST DWARKA: DELHI Order Page 11 of 11