Delhi District Court
M/S National Small Industries ... vs M/S Astral Cables Ltd & Ors on 9 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI I. S. MEHTA, DJ-IX CUM ASJ I/C
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Criminal Revision No.781/2010
M/S National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. ....Revisionist
Versus
M/S Astral Cables Ltd & Ors. ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 27.11.2010
Date of Arguments : 09.03.2011
Date of Decision : 09.03.2011
Appearance: Sh. Anil Yadav, counsel for the revisionist.
Ms. Anupama Narang, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is filed by the revisionist against the order dated 30.8.2010, passed by Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, dismissing the case of the revisionist in default.
2. Aggrieved from the impugned order, revisionist has filed present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law and the court below has wrongly dismissed the complaint case of the revisionist and prays that impugned order be set aside.
3. I have heard Sh. Anil Yadav, Ld. counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Anupama Narang, Ld. counsel for the respondent and CR No.781/2010 Page 1/3 have also gone through the relevant record including the impugned order.
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has submitted that a complaint case u/s 138/142 Negotiable instrument Act was filed by the the complainant and same was pending trial at Patiala House Courts. Lateron, the said complaint case was transferred from the Patiala House Court to the Dwarka Courts and was assigned to the court of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate and since, the complainant failed to appear before the said court, the complaint was dismissed in default on 30.8.2010.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the complainant failed to appear before the court below as no court notice, intimating the transfer of the matter, was served upon the complainant. Ld counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that non appearance of the revisionist, before the trial court, was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above and prays that impugned order be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present revision petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
6. From the perusal of record, it shows that on 30.8.2010, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the court below however, the counsel on behalf of accused No.1 and 4 was present. The court below on the said date, dismissed the complaint of the complainant in default, consequently, acquitting the accused No. 1 and 4, in the proceedings.
The revisionist has filed the present revision petition instead of filing an appeal. Thus, in view of the Judgment in Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Mohammed Jaros and another, 2003 CRI. L. J CR No.781/2010 Page 2/3 102, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed as not maintainable.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in open court on 9.3.2011 (I.S Mehta) DJ-1X-cum-ASJ I/C Dwarka Courts/Delhi.
CR No.781/2010 Page 3/3