Delhi District Court
S.P. Jain vs Bbc Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd on 23 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL
JUDGE(NDPS) NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Criminal Revision 22/2016
(Case No. 57521/2016)
S.P. Jain,
S/o Late Shri Kesar Prasad Jain,
233, Indl. Estate, Patparganj,
New Delhi
..... Petitioner
Versus
BBC Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,
217, Express Tower,
Comercial Complex, Azadpur,
Delhi
..... Respondent.
Revision arising out of order dated
23.4.2016 passed in CC No. 68/01/15,
Date of institution of the case : 05.07.2016
Date when final arguments concluded : 23.07.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.07.2016
ORDER:
1 Petitioner before this court has challenged an order dated 23.4.16 passed by ld. court of Shri Manish Khurana, ACMM, North. Vide the impugned order application filed on behalf of accused seeking permission to examine him in defence had been dismissed. Petitioner is an accused before the ld trial court.
.
(CR 22/2016) Page 1 of3 2 During course of submissions it has been submitted by ld.
counsel for petitioner that petitioner had earlier been permanently exempted from appearance in the case as he was a resident of Silvasa. It was submitted that petitioner wanted to examine himself in defence, but the said request had been declined by the ld. trial court. It was prayed that petitioner be permitted to examine himself in defence and that the impugned order be set aside as grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner.
3 Perusal of record reveals that after statement of accused was recorded in this case on 4.1.14 matter had been adjourned for filing of list of defence witnesses and documents / DE for 24.1.14 on which date last opportunity for DE was granted for 19.2.14. As no DW was examined till then, DE was closed on 19.2.14 and matter fixed for final arguments. The said order dated 19.2.14 was challenged by the petitioner and vide order dated 22.9.14 passed by ld. court of Ms. Ravinder Kaur, District & Sessions Judge (South-West), the trial court was directed to examine the two named DWs on 10.10.14 and thereafter to afford only one opportunity to the petitioner to examine himself U/s 315 Cr. P.C. As the present petitioner failed to examine himself in defence, vide order dated 7.1.15 passed by ld. trial court, DE was again closed and matter posted for final arguments for 23.1.15. The said order dated 7.1.15 was again challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition which came to be dismissed in default on 15.5.15. It was thereafter that petitioner again moved an application U/s 315 Cr. P.C on 23.4.16 which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
.
(CR 22/2016) Page 2 of3 4 The above-mentioned factual matrix goes to show that the
petitioner who is an accused before the ld. trial court has succeeded in delaying the matter on one ground or the other since recording of his statement on 4.1.14. The present revision petition also appears to be yet another attempt by the petitioner to delay the already delayed proceedings.
5 On perusal of impugned order this court does not find any irregularity or impropriety in the same and rather in considered opinion of this court it was a just and proper order to be passed in facts and circumstances of the case.
6 Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands dismissed.
7 Copy of this order be sent to Ld. trial court. On request of ld. counsel a copy of order be given dasti to him. Revision file be separated and consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 23.7.2016 ASJ,Spl. Judge(NDPS)
North,Rohini Courts, Delhi
.
(CR 22/2016) Page 3 of3