Delhi District Court
Criminal Revision No. 60/07 1 Smt. ... vs M/S Triveni Infrastructure on 14 May, 2007
Criminal Revision No. 60/07 1 Smt. Suresh Vs
M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 60/07
Smt. Suresh
D/o Late Sh. Chander Sai
R/o H.No. 250, V. & P.O. Tughlakabad,
New Delhi. .....Revisionist
Versus
1.The State (NCT of Delhi)
2.M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director/Directors/Partner
Office At R-13, 2nd Floor, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048.
Also at :-
7th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
3.Shri Sumit Mittal
Partner/Authorized Signatory/Director/
Managing Director of M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
4.Shri Madhur Mittal
Partner/Director/Managing Director of
M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
5.Shri Rajiv Aggarwal
Manager/Authorized Representative of
M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
Criminal Revision No. 60/07 2 Smt. Suresh Vs
M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
(Respondents No.2 to 4 at):-
R-13, 2nd Floor, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048. .....Respondents
Also at :-
7th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of a revision petition filed by the revisionist against an order dated 1.3.2007 in complaint no. 2099/1 of the year 2006 passed by Ms Geetanjli Goel, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the revisionist case is that she was having a share in agriculture land which was sold to Respondent No.2 M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. For a sum of Rs.94,50,000/-. Respondent No.3 Sumit Mittal the Managing Director of Respondent No.2 issued a cheque worth Rs.14,17,500/- to the revisionist as balance Criminal Revision No. 60/07 3 Smt. Suresh Vs M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.
payment. However the said cheque on presentation was dishonoured and accordingly revisionist was constrained to file the present complaint against Respondent No. 2 to 5 U/s 138 N.I. Act. It is was alleged that Respondent No3 and 4 were the Partners/Managing Directors of M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and Respondent No.5 was the Manager/Authorized Representative of the said company. After taking preliminary evidence, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the respondents. Respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 appeared before the trial court and pleaded guilty. On voluntary plea of guilt by the Respondent No.3, 4 and 5, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate convicted them vide order dated 26.2.2007 and fixed the case for arguments on sentence.
3. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced Respondent No. 2, 3, and 4 to imprisonment till rising of the court and directed them to pay a compensation in the cheque Criminal Revision No. 60/07 4 Smt. Suresh Vs M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.
amount and further a compensation in the sum of Rs.5000/-.
4. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argues that the compensation in the present case is grossly inadequate. It is argued that the cheque in question was dishonoured thrice and that even when she sent a legal notice, the accused persons did not make any payment. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that without framing a notice, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the plea of guilt of the accused persons. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that even after recording of the plea of guilt of the Managing Director and Authorized Representatives of Respondent no.2 i.e. M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd., Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate did not convict the company.
5. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate did not understand the pain of a Criminal Revision No. 60/07 5 Smt. Suresh Vs M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.
party who was duped by respondents and took an extremely lenient view.
6. I have considered all facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that it is a simple case of dishonourment of the cheque and when party appeared they fully knew as to what are the accusations against them. If a notice is not framed, complainant cannot be said to have been aggrieved by it. On the other hand Section 464(1) of Criminal Procedure Code specifically states that no order or sentence would be deemed in valid only on the ground that no charge was framed.
7. The present trial was a summons trial. As per Section 251 CrPC dealing with the trial of summons cases, it has been specifically laid down that it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. Moreover a person would only plead guilty, when the Magistrate would state the particular of the charge to him. Although it is not Criminal Revision No. 60/07 6 Smt. Suresh Vs M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.
specifically written in the charge sheet, this court presumed that the facts of the case were stated to the accused persons who pleaded guilty voluntarily.
8. However I agree with Ld. Counsel for revisionist that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate should have convicted Respondent No.2 M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. also because its Directors and its Authorized Representatives had pleaded guilty. But since its Directors and Authorized Representatives have pleaded guilty, by implication the company also stands convicted.
9. Although the company cannot be made to suffer sentence. However Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate would have been fully justified in directing the company to pay compensation to the complainant. I, therefore, order that company i.e. Respondent No.2 shall make payment of compensation to the revisionist at the rate of simple interest of 12% per annum calculated from 29.9.2006 till Criminal Revision No. 60/07 7 Smt. Suresh Vs M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.
date of this order 14.5.2007. (the date of 29.9.2006 has been taken in consideration in view of the fact that in his arguments before the trial court he had stated that he had taken interest upto 29.9.2006). Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate shall calculated the amount and direct Respondent No.2 to 5 to make payment of the same jointly or severally. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate would be at liberty to sentence the Respondent No.3 to 5 in default of payment of the cheque amount and would also be at liberty to issue attachment warrants against the company to realise the said amount. However I am not inclined to enhance the sentence as the respondents had fairly pleaded guilty on the first date of their appearance in court. In view of the above discussion only the compensation is enhanced in term as stated above. The order of trial court is modified accordingly. Copy of the order along with the trial court record be returned back to Criminal Revision No. 60/07 8 Smt. Suresh Vs M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.
the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Both the parties shall appear before her court on 21.5.2007. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 14.5.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi