Delhi District Court
Dps Kohli vs State (Through Public Prosecutor) on 8 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision 105/12
DPS Kohli
....Revisionist
Vs.
1. State (through Public Prosecutor)
2. Allahabad Bank
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.05.2012
Reserved for order on : 03.10.2012
Order Pronounced on: 08.10.2012
ORDER
The present revision u/s 397 Cr.PC has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 13.03.2012 passed by Sh.Amit Arora, Ld. MM whereby the Ld. MM had dismissed the application of the revisionist, requesting that surety given in CC no. 4556/10 may be accepted as surety in CC no.654/11.
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision is CR NO.105/12 DPS Kohli Vs. State, Allahabad Bank Page No.1 of 6 that the respondent no.2 bank had filed complaint case u/s 138 NIC Act before the Ld. Trial court alleging that M/s Koutons Retails India Ltd. Approached the bank for short term Corporate loan of Rs. 50.00 crores. On the request of accused short term loan was sanction vide letter dated 6.11.08. The said loan was to be repaid in two installments of Rs.25.00 crores each in 11th and 12th month from the date of disbursement but the accused deliberately delayed the payment and after repeated requests first installment was paid. Accused again approached the bank vide letter dated 5.1.10 for reschedule of remaining loan amount of Rs.25.00 crores and it was rescheduled vide sanction letter dated 5.2.10 and now it was to be repaid in 3 installments of Rs.8.33 crores, Rs.8.33 crores and Rs. 8.34 crores each in the month of June, July and August 2010. Revisionist DPS Kohli being the authorised signatory/Director of accused no.1 Koutons, issued cheque bearing no. 260276 dated 14.8.10 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank towards the payments of installments. On presentation the said cheques was returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. Legal notice dated 11.2.2011 was served upon the accused/revisionist but the accused/revisionist did not care to repay the said amount. Hence complaint case was filed. The complainant/respondent led the presummoning evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Satender Kr, Chief Manager and accused were CR NO.105/12 DPS Kohli Vs. State, Allahabad Bank Page No.2 of 6 summoned vide order dated 25.3.2011. Accused/revisionist put in his appearance on 28.6.2011 and he was enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5.00 lac and he was directed to furnish a surety in the like amount on the next date. On 21.7.2011 personal bond of accused were extended and Ld. Counsel moved an application for consolidation before Ld.ACMM which was disposed off on 29.7.2011. On 23.1.2012 application for furnishing only one surety in both the cases was filed. The said application was dismissed on 13.3.2012 by the Ld. MM. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition was filed.
3. This revision was received by this court on 05.05.2012. Trial court record was summoned which was received and thereafter I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the order dated 13.3.2012 is not sustainable in law and the same is full of conjectures and surmises. The order is self contradictory as the court is of the view that once the court has accepted surety bond furnished in CC no. 4556/10 there is no bar to accept the same surety in CC no.654/11 and on the other hand Ld. MM did not apply/accept his view. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case law Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State, CR NO.105/12 DPS Kohli Vs. State, Allahabad Bank Page No.3 of 6 Crl. M (M) No. 2679 of 1992. It has been submitted that order dated 13.3.2012 may kindly be set aside and direction may be issued to accept the same surety in case CC No. 654/11 titled Allahabad Bank Vs. M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. & Ors.
5. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, I have also perused the trial court file and the orders passed by the Ld. MM. The main gist of arguments of the Ld. Counsel is that Ld. MM did not accept the same surety furnished in CC NO. 4556/10 for CC no. 654/11. In case law 1993 JCC 219 titled Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State it has been stated in the head note that: 'Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sec.439, 219 - Surety for different offences, committed within a year - Contention that all the offences alleged to have been committed within one year - Therefore instead of furnishing 3 sureties, the petitioner should be directed to furnish one surety - Accused be released on bail on furnishing P.B.'s in each case with one surety for all the three cases'.
6. I have perused the order of Ld. MM dated 13.3.2011 wherein it has observed that same surety can be accepted in CC no. 654/11 subject to his soundness. The case law cited by the Ld. Counsel for the accused/revisionist also enumerates that same surety CR NO.105/12 DPS Kohli Vs. State, Allahabad Bank Page No.4 of 6 can be accepted for all the cases. With due respect, there is no observation in the said case law regarding amount of surety ordered at the time of admitting the accused on bail. In the present case CC no.654/11 vide order dated 28.06.2011 the accused/revisionist was admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5.00 lac and he was also directed to furnishing surety of the same amount on or before the next date of hearing i.e.21.07.2011. But till today no surety has been furnished by the revisionist. The amount involved in the present case is approx Rs.8.00 Crore. It seems that accused/revisionist wants to delay the proceedings of this case.
7. In view of my above discussions and the observation of case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, I am of the view that the same surety can be accepted for case bearing CC no.654/11 subject to his furnishing surety bond in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ as per order dated 28.6.2011. Therefore I did not find any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 13.03.2012 and the same is maintained. Resultantly the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
8. Revisionist is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 15.10.2012 and furnish the surety bond. Ld. MM is directed CR NO.105/12 DPS Kohli Vs. State, Allahabad Bank Page No.5 of 6 to proceed in accordance with law if the surety bond is not furnished on the date fixed. Revision is disposed off accordingly.
9. Trial court files be sent back to the court concerned with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 08.10.2012.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI CR NO.105/12 DPS Kohli Vs. State, Allahabad Bank Page No.6 of 6