Delhi District Court
Cnr No. Dlse010085172017 vs M/S Scj Plastics on 4 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GULSHAN KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE 03
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
CNR NO. DLSE010085172017
CR NO. 558/17
M/s Creative Ware Ltd.
Through its Director,
Sh. Arun Kumar Bagla,
S/o Late Sh. Narayan Bagla,
5 H, New Road Kolkata.
Presently at -
G1, South Extension - II,
New Delhi. .......... Revisionist
Versus
M/s SCJ Plastics,
Through its AR,
F3/1011, Okhla Industrial Area - I,
New Delhi .......... Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.11.2017 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 04.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2018
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of criminal revision CR No. 558/17 Creative Wares Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 1 of 4 petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist therein challenging the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The order passed by Ld. MM is as follows: "...............
At 3:00PM The present case pertains to the year 2005 and still at the stage of precharge evidence.
Today in the morning, the proxy counsel for accused sought pass over till 3:00PM. Now at 3:00PM, proxy counsel submits that main counsel is busy in High Court. He has further submitted that on LDOH, date was given in his absence.
Be that as it may, on LDOH, Ld. Predecessor Court has directed that no further adjournment shall be given to any party on any ground.
As per the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, 10 years old matter has to be disposed off by 31.12.2017. In view of the above, right to cross examine the witness of accused stands closed.
Put up for arguments on charge on 13.10.2017. Date is given as per the convenience of both the counsels."
2. It is stated by the counsel for revisionist that if said order is not set aside, it would cause great prejudice to the revisionist.
CR No. 558/17 Creative Wares Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 2 of 43. Counsel for respondent/complainant supports the impugned order and submits that revisionist is prolonging the proceedings in this case.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and material placed on record, I find that respondent/complainant has not been cross examined at all. The complainant witness has not be cross examined by the accused despite several opportunities being given. Vide order dated 18.08.2017, Ld. MM has directed that no adjournment shall be given to any party on any ground. On next date of hearing i.e. 22.09.2017, adjournment was sought on behalf of accused/revisionist on the ground that main counsel was not available being busy in Hon'ble High Court. It is to be seen whether cross examination of respondent/complainant witness is essential for just decision of the case. On account of delay caused, respondent/complainant can be always compensated by payment of cost. In the considered opinion of this court, cross examination of respondent/complainant is essential for fair trial.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by Ld. MM is set aside and the revision petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs.25,000/ to be paid to the respondent/complainant on next date of hearing. It is made clear CR No. 558/17 Creative Wares Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 3 of 4 that one effective opportunity be granted to revisionist to properly cross examine the respondent/complainant. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of.
Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on date already fixed.
Criminal Revision Petition Record be consigned to record room.
Trial Court Record, if any, be sent back to court concerned along with copy of order.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (GULSHAN KUMAR) ON 04.04.2018 ASJ03, S.E., SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI CR No. 558/17 Creative Wares Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 4 of 4