Delhi District Court
Of Delhi In M/S Libra Finance vs . Sanjay Decided On 12.12.2008 To ... on 18 February, 2011
C.C.No.2490/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with Counsel.
Accused in person.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is not available.
At request of the accused, be awaited.
To be called at 2.00 p.m.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.293/10
18.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Counsel for the Accused.
Both the Counsels submit that matter has been settled.
However, they seek some more time.
At request, list on 28.02.2011 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4557/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with Counsel.
Bailable Warrant not received back. Be awaited.
It appears that Dasti Warrant was directed. However, Complainant did not
avail this mode.
Bailable Warrant be issued afresh.
To be listed on 17.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4306/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with Counsel.
NBW issued against the accused person not received back. Be awaited.
NBW as directed be issued to the SHO, PS: Kamla Market, Delhi.
Report be called from the concerned SHO for 15.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1378/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Process issued U/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. not received back. Be awaited.
Ahlmad to check and report.
However, ld. Counsel submits that he wants to fresh address of the
accused person.
Let a Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused for 29.04.2011.
Let a fresh address of the accused be furnished by the Complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.283/10
18.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he wants to withdraw the
Vakalatnama.
Notice was framed against the accused through her counsel.
Accused was exempted till further orders.
Since ld. Counsel for the accused does not wish to represent the accused,
he may be discharged.
A notice be issued to the accused person.
List on 30.04.2011.
At request of ld. Counsel for the Complainant date is changed to
03.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1851/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Summoned witnesses are not present.
Complainant has been cross-examined in part.
Son of the Complainant is also present who is an Advocate by Profession.
Complainant submits that presence of his counsel is necessary.
He seeks an adjournment.
Ld. Counsel for the accused opposed the prayer.
It is, however, made clear that on the next date, entire cross-examination
has to be concluded. No further opportunity shall be granted to the complainant
on any count whatsoever.
All the witnesses be summoned afresh.
To be listed on 03.05.2011.
At request of ld. Counsel for the accused, matter to be listed on
03.05.2011 and 04.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1085/10
18.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Accused is exempted.
Matter is at the stage of arguments. However, both the parties submit that
they will settle the matter in two weeks.
To be listed on 05.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1698/10
18.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
These are three connected matters.
It appears that Dasti notice was directed to be served upon the accused
person. However, this mode is not availed of.
Notice has been issued to the accused person. Not received back. Be
awaited.
At this stage, ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant submits that ld.
Counsel for the accused was available in the court but he has not appeared in this
matter.
He further submits that a notice may be issued to the ld. Counsel for the
accused person so that the presence of the accused may be secured.
Let a notice be issued to the ld. Counsel for the accused. Concerned
Nazarat Branch to insure the service of notice sufficient before the next date of
hearing.
AR of the complainant submits that he will be out country in the month
of March and, therefore, he requested that a short date may be given.
Be listed on 26.02.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1679/10
18.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
These are three connected matters.
It appears that Dasti notice was directed to be served upon the accused
person. However, this mode is not availed of.
Notice has been issued to the accused person. Not received back. Be
awaited.
At this stage, ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant submits that ld.
Counsel for the accused was available in the court but he has not appeared in this
matter.
He further submits that a notice may be issued to the ld. Counsel for the
accused person so that the presence of the accused may be secured.
Let a notice be issued to the ld. Counsel for the accused. Concerned
Nazarat Branch to insure the service of notice sufficient before the next date of
hearing.
AR of the complainant submits that he will be out country in the month
of March and, therefore, he requested that a short date may be given.
Be listed on 26.02.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1697/10
18.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
These are three connected matters.
It appears that Dasti notice was directed to be served upon the accused
person. However, this mode is not availed of.
Notice has been issued to the accused person. Not received back. Be
awaited.
At this stage, ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant submits that ld.
Counsel for the accused was available in the court but he has not appeared in this
matter.
He further submits that a notice may be issued to the ld. Counsel for the
accused person so that the presence of the accused may be secured.
Let a notice be issued to the ld. Counsel for the accused. Concerned
Nazarat Branch to insure the service of notice sufficient before the next date of
hearing.
AR of the complainant submits that he will be out country in the month
of March and, therefore, he requested that a short date may be given.
Be listed on 26.02.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1671/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
There is no report in respect of issuance of any process as directed vide
earlier orders.
Ahlmad to check and report.
However, ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he wants to file
fresh address of the accused person.
Let a Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused person for
08.04.2011.
Fresh address of the accused person to file by the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1269/10
18.02.2011
Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that there were two connected
matters. However, one matter has been transferred to the court of Sh. Viplav
Dabas, Ld. MM.
Matter is listed for defence evidence since Plea and Examination of the
accused have already been recorded.
Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed that both the cases may directed to be
continued in any one of the courts.
Let this file be also transferred to the same court.
Parties to appear before the Ld. CMM today at 2.00 p.m.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1457/10
18.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has moved an exemption application on
behalf of the complainant on the ground that the complainant is suffering from
Loose Motion.
It appears that Complainant has not been appearing for several dates.
On the last of hearing, an exemption application on behalf of the
Complainant was dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for the accused was available in the morning.
Accused moved an application for dismissal of the present complaint.
It appears that Affidavit of the Complainant is on record.
Affidavit given at the stage of Pre-summoning stage has already been
tendered.
Accused ought to have disclosed his defence and lead defence evidence
but he chose to file an application for dismissal of the complaint.
Accused has also filed an Affidavit in defence evidence.
Evidence of the accused cannot be taken on Affidavit. Request declined.
Evidence of the accused has to be recorded orally.
One opportunity.
I am not inclined to invoke Section-256 Cr.P.C. since matter is at the stage
of Defence evidence and it is the accused who has to take initiatives in this
respect.
However, considering the conduct of the complainant, he is directed to be
present on the next date of hearing.
Accused to disclose his defence and lead defence evidence on the next
date of hearing.
To be listed 02.04.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.2490/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Passover has repeatedly been sought by the accused since morning.
It appears that Affidavit of the Complainant was filed on 06.05.2008 and
since then the matter is being adjourned for Cross-examination of the
Complainant.
Today, adjournment is again sought by the accused.
One opportunity.
Adjournment cost Rs.5,000/-.
Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- to be deposited
with DLSA.
List on 28.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
File taken up on a joint application.
C.C.No.2011/1/09
18.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the accused.
Matter was directed to be sent to Mediation Cell for 14.02.2011.
However, Reader of this court submits that parties had not singed the Mediation
Proforma.
Request made in the joint application is allowed.
File be sent to Mediation Cell for 24.02.2011 at 2.00 p.m.
Regular date is 11.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
File taken up on application moved by the accused.
C.C.No.821/10
18.02.2011
Present: Accused with counsel.
Witnesses were already directed to be summoned.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that a copy of list of witnesses has
been provided to the Complainant.
Witnesses are the same who were directed to be summoned vide earlier
orders.
Application is allowed.
Summons be issued to the witnesses.
Diet money to be paid on the spot.
List on date fixed i.e. on 11.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4520/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Process not received back. Be awaited.
In the meanwhile, issue fresh process for 18.04.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
File taken up on application moved by the complainant.
C.C.No.2607/10
18.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
It is submitted that limitation of filing the complaint was to be expired on
06.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on the same date.
Facts were matrix of the case is as under:
Date of deemed delivery of notice: 23.10.2008.
Limitation under Proviso(c) to Section-138 NI Act expired on 06.11.2008.
Cause of Action U/s 142(b) NI Act: on 07.11.2008.
One month time expired on 06.12.2008.
Complaint filed on 06.12.2008.
It appears that a notice to the Condonation application filed was directed to be issued on earlier occasions. However, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above factual matrix there cannot be any delay in filing of the complaint.
His contention in respect of the above factual matrix can easily be accepted as discussed above.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Libra Finance Vs. Sanjay decided on 12.12.2008 to buttress his contention that a Criminal court may invoke an inherent powers which are absolutely necessary for dispensation of justice.
I consider that there is no necessity to continue with the condonation application since the complaint is well within the time.
I take cognizance of the matter.
Now Pre-summoning evidence has to be recorded.
To be listed on 07.03.2011 i.e. the date already fixed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 File taken up on application moved by the complainant.
C.C.No.2688/1018.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
It is submitted that limitation of filing the complaint was to be expired on 06.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on the same date.
Facts were matrix of the case is as under:
Date of deemed delivery of notice: 23.10.2008.
Limitation under Proviso(c) to Section-138 NI Act expired on 06.11.2008.
Cause of Action U/s 142(b) NI Act: on 07.11.2008.
One month time expired on 06.12.2008.
Complaint filed on 06.12.2008.
It appears that a notice to the Condonation application filed was directed to be issued on earlier occasions. However, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above factual matrix there cannot be any delay in filing of the complaint.
His contention in respect of the above factual matrix can easily be accepted as discussed above.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Libra Finance Vs. Sanjay decided on 12.12.2008 to buttress his contention that a Criminal court may invoke an inherent powers which are absolutely necessary for dispensation of justice.
I consider that there is no necessity to continue with the condonation application since the complaint is well within the time.
I take cognizance of the matter.
Now Pre-summoning evidence has to be recorded.
To be listed on 07.03.2011 i.e. the date already fixed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 File taken up on application moved by the complainant.C.C.No.2699/10
18.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
It is submitted that limitation of filing the complaint was to be expired on 06.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on the same date.
Facts were matrix of the case is as under:
Date of deemed delivery of notice: 23.10.2008.
Limitation under Proviso(c) to Section-138 NI Act expired on 06.11.2008.
Cause of Action U/s 142(b) NI Act: on 07.11.2008.
One month time expired on 06.12.2008.
Complaint filed on 06.12.2008.
It appears that a notice to the Condonation application filed was directed to be issued on earlier occasions. However, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above factual matrix there cannot be any delay in filing of the complaint.
His contention in respect of the above factual matrix can easily be accepted as discussed above.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Libra Finance Vs. Sanjay decided on 12.12.2008 to buttress his contention that a Criminal court may invoke an inherent powers which are absolutely necessary for dispensation of justice.
I consider that there is no necessity to continue with the condonation application since the complaint is well within the time.
I take cognizance of the matter.
Now Pre-summoning evidence has to be recorded.
To be listed on 07.03.2011 i.e. the date already fixed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 File taken up on application moved by the complainant.C.C.No.2652/10
18.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
It is submitted that limitation of filing the complaint was to be expired on 06.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on the same date.
Facts were matrix of the case is as under:
Date of deemed delivery of notice: 23.10.2008.
Limitation under Proviso(c) to Section-138 NI Act expired on 06.11.2008.
Cause of Action U/s 142(b) NI Act: on 07.11.2008.
One month time expired on 06.12.2008.
Complaint filed on 06.12.2008.
It appears that a notice to the Condonation application filed was directed to be issued on earlier occasions. However, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above factual matrix there cannot be any delay in filing of the complaint.
His contention in respect of the above factual matrix can easily be accepted as discussed above.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Libra Finance Vs. Sanjay decided on 12.12.2008 to buttress his contention that a Criminal court may invoke an inherent powers which are absolutely necessary for dispensation of justice.
I consider that there is no necessity to continue with the condonation application since the complaint is well within the time.
I take cognizance of the matter.
Now Pre-summoning evidence has to be recorded.
To be listed on 07.03.2011 i.e. the date already fixed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 File taken up on application moved by the complainant.C.C.No.2617/10
18.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
It is submitted that limitation of filing the complaint was to be expired on 06.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on the same date.
Facts were matrix of the case is as under:
Date of deemed delivery of notice: 23.10.2008.
Limitation under Proviso(c) to Section-138 NI Act expired on 06.11.2008.
Cause of Action U/s 142(b) NI Act: on 07.11.2008.
One month time expired on 06.12.2008.
Complaint filed on 06.12.2008.
It appears that a notice to the Condonation application filed was directed to be issued on earlier occasions. However, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above factual matrix there cannot be any delay in filing of the complaint.
His contention in respect of the above factual matrix can easily be accepted as discussed above.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Libra Finance Vs. Sanjay decided on 12.12.2008 to buttress his contention that a Criminal court may invoke an inherent powers which are absolutely necessary for dispensation of justice.
I consider that there is no necessity to continue with the condonation application since the complaint is well within the time.
I take cognizance of the matter.
Now Pre-summoning evidence has to be recorded.
To be listed on 07.03.2011 i.e. the date already fixed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.3168/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused Mahender Singh with counsel.
Accused has already been convicted and matter was listed for arguments on sentence.
However, ld. Counsel submits that accused will pay the amount.
Complainant does not have any objection if the same is paid within a very short time.
I have considered their submissions and gone through the record.
Considering the scope of Section-147 NI Act, one opportunity may be given to the parties.
10 days time is being given to the accused person so that matter may be effectively compounded.
To be listed for compounding/arguments on sentence on 01.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.3170/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused Mahender Singh with counsel.
Accused has already been convicted and matter was listed for arguments on sentence.
However, ld. Counsel submits that accused will pay the amount.
Complainant does not have any objection if the same is paid within a very short time.
I have considered their submissions and gone through the record.
Considering the scope of Section-147 NI Act, one opportunity may be given to the parties.
10 days time is being given to the accused person so that matter may be effectively compounded.
To be listed for compounding/arguments on sentence on 01.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
3
C.C.No.3161/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused Kulwant Kaur with counsel.
Vide separate judgment, accused is convicted.
At this stage, ld. Counsel submits that accused will pay the amount.
Complainant does not have any objection if the same is paid within a very short time.
I have considered their submissions and gone through the record.
Considering the scope of Section-147 NI Act, one opportunity may be given to the parties.
10 days time is being given to the accused person so that matter may be effectively compounded.
To be listed for compounding/arguments on sentence on 01.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 File taken up on application for cancellation of NBW.
C.C.No.3550/10
18.02.2011
Present: Accused with counsel.
An application for cancellation of NBW moved on behalf of accused person.
It appears that NBW was cancelled at one point of time i.e. on 15.07.2010.
However, fresh NBW was directed to be issued on 05.02.2011, since accused was absent. It was observed therein that accused was delaying the matter on the pretext of settlement.
The matter is at the stage of defence evidence. Complainant has already submitted that there is no chance of settlement (as appearing in order dated 05.02.2011).
Today, accused is present, NBW becomes infructuous and stands cancelled.
However, it is clear from the Undertaking (.....in case of my making default herein myself to forfeit to Government the sum of Rs.50,000/-) given in the Bond that the accused had already forfeited a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Government for his non-appearance.
It is pertinent to note that Bail Bond and Surety Bond are two separate bonds and are executed by separate persons.
Since accused is present, there is no necessity to issue a notice to the Surety.
However, ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused wants to furnish a fresh Surety.
Accordingly, earlier Surety i.e. Ashwini Mudgal is discharged.
Accused is released on fresh Personal Bond and Surety Bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- are furnished and accepted.
Since accused has already forfeited the Bond amount as executed by him, the accused has to deposit the amount with Government showing sufficient cause for the purpose of Section-446 Cr.P.C. which requires "any person" whose bond has been forfeited to pay the Bond amount or show sufficient cause.
The application moved by the accused person may be treated as an explanation given U/s 446 Cr.P.C.
Ld. Counsel has submitted that the same be treated as such.
I have gone through the application and heard the counsel.
The ground taken in the application is that the mother of the accused had suddenly suffered a paralysis and, therefore, accused was unable to appear before the court since he was looking after his mother.
There is no averment in respect of date of such paralysis. There is no medical record attached with the application.
The ground mentioned in the application does not inspire confidence.
The ground is not sufficient.
However, accused submits that he is very poor person and he undertakes to be present in the court on each and every date of hearing.
In such circumstances, I consider that some portion of Bond amount may be remitted U/s 446(3) Cr.P.C.
Now the accused has to deposit Rs.20,000/- with the Government.
One week time is being given to deposit the amount.
To be listed on date fixed i.e. on 04.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 FIR No.18/11 PS: ODRS U/s 323/395/397/506/504 IPC 18.02.2011 Present: IO Inspector Anand Singh.
An application has been moved by the IO for specific orders.
It is submitted that TIP could have not been conducted on 17.02.2011 due to the non-appearance of the witness.
Application made on 17.02.2011 was allowed and date was fixed for 19.02.2011. IO submits that attested copy of that order may be given so that Jail Authorities may be intimated for the next date.
It is, however, brought to the notice of this court that as per the order of the Ld. CMM, TIP of accused persons has to be conducted by Ld. Relieving Magistrate (see Para-10A of Link Roster order dated 15.02.2011).
Record of this case be sent to the concerned court today itself so that appropriate orders may be passed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.600/10
18.02.2011
Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Accused is absent despite repeated and several calls.
Matter is at the stage of pronouncement of judgment.
Let an NBW be issued against the accused person.
To be listed on 28.02.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.1427/10
18.02.2011
Present: Both the parties.
Vide separate judgment, accused is acquitted of the charges in the present complaint case.
Bail bond and Surety bond be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4074/10
18.02.2011
Present: None.
No one has appeared despite repeated and several calls.
There is no report regarding issuance of any process.
Ahlmad to report.
In the meanwhile, previous order be complied with.
List on 17.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4518/10
18.02.2011
Present: None.
Process still not received back. Be awaited.
Fresh process as issued be also awaited.
List on 17.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4134/10
18.02.2011
Present: None.
No one has appeared despite repeated and several calls.
There is no report regarding issuance of any process.
Ahlmad to report.
In the meanwhile, previous order be complied with.
List on 17.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4254/10
18.02.2011
Present: None.
Court notice issued not received back. Be awaited.
List on 17.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 File is received by way of transfer.
C.C.No.3351/10
18.02.2011
Present: None.
The file was wrongly placed on 18.11.2010.
The date of 18.11.2010 was wrongly written as 18/11/11 which is accordingly corrected today.
Today, no one has appeared despite repeated and several calls.
Considering the factum of transfer, one opportunity is being given.
Let previous order be complied with, if applied for.
Court notice be also issued to the Complainant.
List on 17.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4783/10
18.02.2011
Present: Complainant with Counsel.
Accused in person.
Examination of the accused has been recorded.
List for defence evidence on 24.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11
C.C.No.4012/10
18.02.2011
Present: Both the parties.
At request, file be sent to Mediation Cell for 23.02.2011 at 2.00 p.m. Regular date is 28.02.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 C.C.No.4512/10 18.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with Counsel.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond furnished and accepted.
Accused has filed an application U/s 145(2) NI Act for Cross-examination of the Complainant.
He may cross-examine the Complainant on the specific points of proving the separate bills in separate names and the fact that cheque was blank.
Let the matter be listed on 21.02.2011 at 2.00 p.m. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11 C.C.No.4711/10 18.02.2011 Present: None for the Complainant.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
Accused is exempted as applied.
List of Witnesses on behalf of accused has been filed.
Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed for one opportunity.
Witness No.2 be summoned.
Accused may also examine himself as defence witness, however, after due formalities of Section-315 Cr.P.C.
To be listed on 26.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(Central)-01/Delhi/18.02.11