Delhi District Court
M/S Ajay Communication vs . M/S Telemart Communication on 10 December, 2012
M/s Ajay Communication vs. M/s Telemart Communication
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE:
Criminal Revision No. 60/12
M/s Ajay Communication
Through its Proprietor/ Director
Shri Raj Kumar Sharma
1/9544, Main Babarpur Road,
Delhi.
. . . . Revisionist
VERSUS
M/s Telemart Communication
Through its Director
Shri Mukesh Gupta
K19, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi.
. . . . Respondent
Date of institution : 01.12.2012
Date of arguments : 06.12.2012
Date of Order
: 10.12.2012
ORDER
This is a revision U/s 397 read with Section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure directed against orders dated 26.10.2012, 31.10.2012 and 02.11.2012 passed by Ld. MM03, District Courts Saket, New Delhi in a complaint case No. 3224/01 titled as M/s Telemart Communications vs. M/s Ajay Communications.
CR No. 60/12 1/4
M/s Ajay Communication vs. M/s Telemart Communication The petitioner has been facing trial for offence punishable U/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act in case mentioned above. On 29.11.2011 after closing evidence led by the complainant, case was fixed for statement of accused, for 28.01.2012. The matter was adjourned due to one reason or other till 25.09.2012, when petitioner filed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner/ accused, said application was dismissed by the trial court. As accused was not present despite several calls till 2.00 pm, NBWs were ordered to be issued against him. On 31.10.2012, file was taken up by the court on an application filed by the accused, with a request for cancellation of NBWs ordered to be issued against him. Citing interest of justice Ld. MM allowed that application subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/ to be deposited in DLSA, New Delhi. On 02.01.2012, Ld. Counsel for petitioner/ accused sought disposal of application filed by him U/s 311 Cr.P.C. Said request was declined by the court, observing that the application had already been disposed of vide order dated 26.10.2012. Ld. Counsel for petitioner/ accused sought adjournment to enable himself to file revision against said order, which was also declined by the court. The case was adjourned for statement of accused on cost of Rs. 5,000/. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged all these orders dated 26.10.2012, 31.10.2012 and 02.11.2012.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner did not appear on date fixed for arguments i.e. 06.12.2012. Request made by proxy counsel to adjourn the CR No. 60/12 2/4 M/s Ajay Communication vs. M/s Telemart Communication matter was declined by this court and matter was heard. However, the petitioner was granted opportunity to file written submissions before next date i.e. today. No such written submissions are filed.
It is contended by Ld. Counsels appearing for the respondent that the petitioner is prolonging the matter deliberately on one pretext or the other. Counsel for petitioner is in habit of not appearing in the court on dates fixed and this fact is highlighted by Ld. ASJ Incharge, District Court Saket while hearing another revision petition filed by same accused. Ld. Counsel took me through such an order/ judgment dated 18.07.2012.
By filing an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/ accused has prayed for grant of an opportunity to cross examine witnesses examined by the complainant, recalling order dated 29.11.2011. As is contended by Ld. Counsel for respondent/ complainant and also admitted by the accused even in said application, aforementioned order dated 29.11.2011 was challenged by the accused by filing a revision petition and same was dismissed by the court. When the petitioner had already availed an opportunity to challenge said order by filing a revision petition, same prayer could not have been allowed by Ld. MM while entertaining an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 26.10.2012 through which application filed by revisionist/ accused U/s 311 Cr.P.C was declined.
As discussed above, vide order dated 31.10.2012, an application filed by revisionist/ accused for cancellation of NBWs against CR No. 60/12 3/4 M/s Ajay Communication vs. M/s Telemart Communication him was allowed by the court, though subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/. When prayer of applicant has already been allowed and it is not plea of petitioner even that said cost was unreasonable. No reason to set aside order dated 31.10.2012.
As application of petitioner/ accused U/s 311 Cr.P.C had already been disposed of by Ld. MM on 26.10.2012, same is very much clear from the order on record also. There was no reason for accused to misunderstand that it was still pending. Even if none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that day, same could have gone through the case file after examining it, but if petitioner or his counsel was not present in the court, same cannot nullify any order from the case file. No reason to interfere with impugned order dated 02.11.2012 also.
Petition in hands is thus dismissed. Parties to appear before the trial court on 14.12.2012.
Let trial court record be sent back, along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI)
Dated 10th December 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
CR No. 60/12 4/4