Delhi District Court
(1) Sutlej Agriculture Pvt. Ltd vs Yes Bank Ltd on 11 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI I.S.MEHTA
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
INCHARGE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT : DELHI.
Criminal Revision No.319/2011
(1) Sutlej Agriculture Pvt. Ltd.
(2) Mr. Gurnihal Singh Mann
(3) Mr. S.S. Mann .....Revisionist
Versus
Yes Bank Ltd. .....Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.09.2011
Date of Arguments : 05.11.2011
Date of Decision : 11.11.2011
Appearance: Sh. Prateek Kumar, Ld. counsel for the revisionist.
Shri L.M.Grover, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
The present revision petition is filed by the revisionist against the order dated 19.08.2011, passed by Shri Sushil Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, vide which the court below declined the summoning of ten defence witnesses i.e from S.L No. 3 to 12, out of total thirteen witnesses, mentioned in the list of witnesses.
2. Aggrieved from the said order, revisionist/accused has filed present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law and on facts of the case. The court below has erred in rejecting the application of the revisionist/accused with regard to witness No. 3 to 12 and prays that impugned order be set aside.
CR No.319/2011 Page 1/33. I have heard Sh. Prateek Kumar, Ld. counsel for the revisionist and Shri L.M.Grover, Ld. counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the relevant record including the impugned order.
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has submitted that court below is wrong in rejecting the application with regard to witness No. 3 to 12. It is further submitted that under the provision of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 every person charged and being tried for an alleged criminal offence, has right of defence and prays that the order passed by the court below be set aside.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist/accused with regard to witnesses at serial no.3 to 12 and revision petition of the revisionist is liable to be dismissed and relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in Crl. M.C. No.1996/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 7672/2010 titled Rajesh Agarwal Vs. State.
5. From the perusal of record, it shows, that the revisionist/accused has preferred to lead evidence, in his defence, by filing the list of witnesses, after his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the first time. The court below's refusal to summon the witnesses at serial no.3 to 12 would amount to denial of fair trial and at the same time accused can not be convicted without opportunity of being heard and his reason of being innocence is looked into. Therefore, in view of the findings given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (i)(2008) 5 SCC 633 titled T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R Muralidhar; (ii) 2007 (2) SCC 258 titled Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S Sampoornam and (iii) 2000 (9) SCC 754, Selvi J. Jayalalitha Vs. State by Deputy Supdt. of Police Chennai, the CR No.319/2011 Page 2/3 revision of the revisionist is allowed and impugned order dated 19.08.2011 is set aside.
The judgment relied on by Ld. counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
Revisionist is directed to appear before the court of Shri Sushil Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Court/Successor Court on 22.11.2011. The court below is directed to issue notice to all the witnesses cited in the original list.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in open court on 11.11.2011 (I.S MEHTA) DJ- & ASJ I/C SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI CR No.319/2011 Page 3/3