Delhi District Court
Additional Sessions Judge-04 vs The State Trading Corporation Of India ... on 11 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
1 Unique I D No. : 02403R0059612013
CR Number : 63/2/14
CC No. : 32/1/12
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
43, Grosvenor Street,
London, W1K 3HL. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing)
........................Respondent.
AND
2 Unique I D No. : 02403R0059592013
CR Number : 64/2/14
CC No. : 463/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
43, Grosvenor Street,
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 1 of 30
London, W1K 3HL. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) ........................Respondent.
AND
3 Unique I D No. : 02403R0059602013
CR Number : 65/2/14
CC No. : 462/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
43, Grosvenor Street,
London, W1K 3HL. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing)
........................Respondent.
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 2 of 30
AND
4 Unique I D No. : 02403R0064812013
CR Number : 66/2/14
CC No. : 32/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Debashish Ganguly
All Ahmed Khalfan
Rawdat Al Karma Building
Flat No. 116, Ist Floor,
Plot No. 318-1203
Dubai, UAE. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) .......................Respondent.
AND
5 Unique I D No. : 02403R0060232013
CR Number : 68/2/14
CC No. : 462/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Mohan Lal Mittal
Renaissance Court,
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 3 of 30
3/5 Wood Mews, Mayfair,
London, UK
W1K 7DN. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi ........................Respondent.
AND
6 Unique I D No. : 02403R0060252013
CR Number : 69/2/14
CC No. : 32/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Mohan Lal Mittal
Renaissance Court,
3/5 Wood Mews, Mayfair,
London, UK
W1K 7DN. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
........................Respondent.
AND
7 Unique I D No. : 02403R00604242013
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 4 of 30
CR Number : 70/2/14
CC No. : 463/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Mohan Lal Mittal
Renaissance Court,
3/5 Wood Mews, Mayfair,
London, UK
W1K 7DN. .................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. ........................Respondent.
AND
8 Unique I D No. : 02403R0066362013
CR Number : 71/2/14
CC No. : 32/1/13
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Pramod Mittal
M/s Global Steel Holdings
24 Alipore Road
Kolkata-27
Also at:
3, Auckland Terrace
Parliament Street
Ramsay, Isle of Man
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 5 of 30
IM8 IAF
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) .......................Respondent.
AND
9 Unique I D No. : 02403R0066392013
CR Number : 72/2/14
CC No. : 463/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Pramod Mittal
M/s Global Steel Holdings
24 Alipore Road
Kolkata-27
Also at:
3, Auckland Terrace
Parliament Street
Ramsay, Isle of Man
IM8 IAF
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 6 of 30
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) ........................Respondent.
AND
10 Unique I D No. : 02403R0066342013
CR Number : 73/2/14
CC No. : 462/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Pramod Mittal
M/s Global Steel Holdings
24 Alipore Road
Kolkata-27
Also at:
3, Auckland Terrace
Parliament Street
Ramsay, Isle of Man
IM8 IAF
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) ........................Respondent.
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 7 of 30
AND
11 Unique I D No. : 02403R0070432013
CR Number : 74/2/14
CC No. : 462/1/12
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Rajib Das
M/s Global Steel Holdings
JAFZA, 16 Suite 501,
PO Box No. 61088
Jabel All Free Zone
Dubai, UAE
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) ........................Respondent.
AND
12 Unique I D No. : 02403R0070432013
CR Number : 75/2/14
CC No. : 32/1/2013
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Rajib Das
M/s Global Steel Holdings
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 8 of 30
JAFZA, 16 Suite 501,
PO Box No. 61088
Jabel All Free Zone
Dubai, UAE
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) .......................Respondent.
AND
13 Unique I D No. : 02403R0070442013
CR Number : 76/2/14
CC No. : 463/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Rajib Das
M/s Global Steel Holdings
JAFZA, 16 Suite 501,
PO Box No. 61088
Jabel All Free Zone
Dubai, UAE
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 9 of 30
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
Through: Authorised Representative
Mr. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing) ........................Respondent.
AND
14 Unique I D No. : 02403R0063502013
CR Number : 77/2/14
CC No. : 463/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Vinod Mittal
43, Grosvenor Street
London, W1K 3HL
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
........................Respondent.
AND
15 Unique I D No. : 02403R0063422013
CR Number : 78/2/14
CC No. : 462/1
PS : Connaught Place
U/S : 138 NI Act
Sh. Vinod Mittal
43, Grosvenor Street
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 10 of 30
London, W1K 3HL
.................. Revisionist.
Versus
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
........................Respondent.
Date of receipt of files in this Court : 10.02.2014
Date when arguments were heard : 05.08.2015
Date of order : 11.08.2015
ORDER
1 This common order shall dispose of all the above said revision petitions arising out of CC No. 32/1/12, CC No. 462/1 and CC No. 463/1, all PS Connaught Place u/s 138 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short NI Act) against the impugned orders dated 19.01.2013 (CR No. 63/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 64/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 65/2/14), 19.01.2013 (CR No. 66/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 68/2/14), 19.01.2013 (CR No. 69/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 70/2/14), 19.01.2013 (CR No. 71/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 72/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 73/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 74/2/14), 19.01.2013 (CR No. 75/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 76/2/14), 09.01.2013 (CR No. 77/2/14) and 09.01.2013 (CR No. 78/2/14), whereby the Ld. Trial court summoned the above said revisionists under Section 138 NI Act. It is pertinent
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 11 of 30 to note that the respondent herein is the original complainant in all the above said three complaint cases.
2 The Ld. Counsel for the parties has stated at bar that the said revisions raise common question of law and can be conveniently disposed of by common order. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned 15 revision petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3 I have already heard the arguments of Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for all the revisionists and Sh. R K Anand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the record including the trial court records. 4 As per the factual matrix of the cases, the complainant/respondent is an Indian public sector company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The said complaints were filed through its AR Sh. Sameer Kapoor, GM (Marketing). The accused no. 2 M/s. Global Steel Philippines (SPV-AMC) Inc. (GSPN) is a limited liability company incorporated in Philippines having its registered office at Philippines and was earlier known as M/s. Global Steel Works International Inc. (GSWII). The accused no. 1 M/s. Global Steel Holdings Ltd. (GSHL) is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Isle of Man. The accused no. 1 is the umbrella/holding company of accused no. 2 and provides investment, management, guidance, corporate planning and structural advice to the group companies. Accused no. 3 Sh. Pramod Mittal (Revisionist no. 8, 9 and 10 in CR No. 71/2/14, 72/2/14 and 73/2/14) is the chairman of both the accused no. 1 and 2 companies and as per complaint
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 12 of 30 cases had been in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of both the said companies and was actively participating and instructing in getting the settlement arrived at before the conciliation. Accused no. 4 Mr Mohanlal Mittal (revisionist no. 5, 6 and 7 in CR No. 68/2/14, 69/2/14 and 70/2/14), accused no. 5 Mr Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (revisionist no. 1, 2 and 3 in CR No. 63/2/14, 64/2/14 and 65/2/14), accused no.6 Mr Samuel Onyeabor Nwabuokei and accused no. 9 Mr Rajib Das (revisionist no. 11, 12 and 13 in CR No. 74/2/14, 75/2/14 and 76/2/14) are the directors of accused no. 1/ GSHL. Accused no. 8 Mr Uday Pratap Singh is the authorized signatory of accused no. 2. Accused no. 7 Mr Vinod Mittal (revisionist no. 14 and 15 in CR No. 77/2/14 and 78/2/14) is the director of accused no. 2/GSPI and is also looking after actively the affairs of accused no. 1 and 2 company and the subject matters of present transaction. As per the complaint cases, he was also all along participating in various meetings relating to discharge of liabilities in relation to issuance of payment of the subject cheques towards discharge of liability of accused no. 1 and 2. Mr Pramod Mittal i.e. revisionist no. 8, 9 and 10, Mr Mohan Lal Mittal i.e. revisionist no. 5, 6 and 7, Mr Ashok Kumar Aggarwal i.e. revisionist no. 1, 2 and 3, Mr Samuel Onyeabor Nwabuokei and Mr Vinod Mittal i.e. revisionist no. 14 and 15 were in-charge of the affairs and conduct of business of both the accused no. 1 and 2 companies, they were responsible and answerable to both these companies for its affairs and business and but for their active participation, the settlement agreement would not having arrived at and issuance of cheque in satisfaction of settlement
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 13 of 30 (award/decree) would not have been possible. Mr Debashish Ganguly (revisionist no. 4) is accused no.10 only in CC No. 32/1/13 and is stated to be company secretary of accused no. 1/GSHL. Accused no. 11 Mr Pankaj Kumar Aggarwal only in CC No. 32/1/13 is stated to be the authorized signatory of accused no. 2/GSPI. The case of the complainant company/respondent is that accused no. 3 to 11 are Principal Officers of accused no. 1 and 2 companies, are in-charge as well as responsible for conduct of its business and for its day to day affairs and management.
5 As per the complaint cases, the complainant/respondent and accused no. 1 and 2 companies entered into a Tripartite Purchase and Sale Agreement dated 04.04.2005 and the accused no. 1 stood as guarantor for accused no. 2. In terms of the agreement, the complainant was to charge 1.25 % net of all expenses whatsoever of L/C value as markup for the supplies. The aforesaid charges were to be paid to the complainant by accused no. 2/GSPI at the time of sale of finished goods/lifting of material/expiry of usuance period, whichever was earlier. The said agreement was signed by accused no. 5 for and on behalf of accused no. 1. The accused no. 7 also signed the agreement and took active part in all commercial discussion. It has been mentioned in the complaint that the above agreement was entered into with the approval of Board of Directors of both the accused no. 1 and 2 company and within the knowledge of all accused. Initially, the agreement was for arrangement by complainant for supply of steel slabs/hot rolled coils or any other items required as raw material in the steel industry from Indian and/or from third
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 14 of 30 countries to the Philippines apart from supply of finished goods like cold rolled coils etc for a period of one year, which was renewed further several times with mutual consent of all the parties. It is the case of complainant company that in the course of execution of the agreement, a substantial amount became due to the complainant from accused no. 2/GSPI. Thereafter, lot of correspondence ensued between the complainant and the accused persons and after that the chairman of accused no. 1 and 2 companies approached the complainant to agree to conciliate the matters between GSHL, GSPI and the complainant company as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the case of the complainant that finally a settlement agreement dated 15.11.2011 was arrived at between the complainant and accused no. 1 and 2 company which was signed by accused no. 3 for and on behalf of accused no. 2 and the accused no. 4 was actively participating in the affairs of accused no. 1. It is the case of complainant that the factum of above said settlement agreement dated 15.11.2011 was within the knowledge of all and was with the active consent of all the accused persons. As per the complaint case, it was agreed that the accused shall pay USD 38 million within 90 days from the date of settlement agreement and the remaining balance of USD 347,737,209 within 180 days of the settlement agreement dated 15.11.2011. In order to discharge its full liability towards the complainant under this settlement including the interest @ 13.25 % calculated till the last date of payment, the accused no. 1 furnished 10 cheques, all drawn on Barclays Private Bank, London. Subsequently, an amount totalling USD 38.47 million was received by the complainant towards
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 15 of 30 the first installment as per the said agreement and the balance installment of the remaining balance USD 347.27 million (approximately) was payable by the accused on or before 13.05.2012. The accused no. 1 and 2 issued 06 cheques for payment of second installment to discharge their liabilities but with some ulterior motives, closed their accounts in collusion with their banker. 6 It is the case of complainant that accused no. 3 Sh Pramod Mittal vide letter dated 08.05.2013 requested the complainant company for extension of 180 days for making payment of second installment of USD 347.27 million and after much persuasion, the complainant agreed for second conciliation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and accordingly, the second conciliation proceedings were held before the same bench of conciliators and a settlement agreement dated 17.05.2012 was executed between the complainant and accused no. 2 which was signed by accused no. 3 Pramod Mittal on behalf of accused no. 1 and 2 companies and the Board of Directors of both accused no. 1 and 2 company were fully aware about the liability of accused no. 1 and 2 for payment of outstanding amount to the complainant. As per the agreement dated 17.05.2012, the accused persons undertook to pay USD 100 million within 90 days from 13.05.2012 and accused no. 1 and 2 further undertook to pay the remaining balance of USD 271,693,467 on or before 180 days from 13.05.2012. Accused no. 1 and 2 companies through their Authorized Signatory i.e. accused no. 3 Pramod Mittal in order to discharge their liability towards the complainant/respondent and in satisfaction of the settlement agreement dated 17.05.2012 issued six cheques, which were signed by
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 16 of 30 accused no. 3 Pramod Mittal on behalf of accused no. 1 and 2 in the presence of Ld. Conciliators and representatives of the parties. The CC No. 462/1 pertains to two cheques out of the above said six cheques with cheque no. 110125 and cheque no. 110126 both dated 10.08.2012, both amounting to 20 million USD each and both drawn on Barclays Mayfair, London. The CC No. 463/1 pertains to two cheques out of the above said six cheques with cheque no. 110127 and cheque no. 110128 both dated 10.08.2012, both amounting to 20 million USD each and both drawn on Barclays Mayfair, London. The CC No. 32/1/12 pertains to one cheque out of the above said six cheques with cheque no. 110130 dated 10.11.2012, amounting to 271,693,467.21 USD drawn on Barclays Mayfair, London. It has been alleged in the complaints that the said cheques were issued by accused no. 1 and 2, the accused no. 3 signed the cheques from the account of the accused no. 1 towards discharge of their liabilities in respect of the amount cover under the cheques and though the cheques were signed by accused no. 3 Pramod Mittal but all the accused persons actively participated in authorizing the accused no. 3 to issue the cheques by passing the necessary resolutions and/or otherwise all the accused persons i.e. accused no. 3 to 11 actively participating in issuing the cheques in favour of the complainant company to discharge the liability of accused no. 1 and 2 company.
7 The grievance of the complainant company is that the cheques no. 110125, 110126, 110127 and 110128 were dishonoured on presentation with the remarks "refer to drawer/maker" as informed to the complainant through e-
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 17 of 30 mail by its banker viz. Bank of Baroda, International Business Branch, New Delhi on 30.08.2012. The complainant served legal notice dated 31.08.2012 upon the accused persons for making payment of the amount under said dishonoured cheques that went uncomplied with and thus filed the complaint cases no. 462/1 and 463/1 respectively.
The cheque no. 110130 was dishonoured on presentation with the remarks 'payment stopped' as informed to the complainant through e-mail by its banker viz. Bank of Baroda, International Business Branch, New Delhi on 23.11.2012 and the complainant received Advice of Debit for an unpaid international cheque dated 26.11.2012 from the Barclays Bank as also advised of unpaid cheque collection dated 28.11.2012 from J P Morgon Chase Bank. The complainant served legal notice dated 06.12.2012 upon the accused persons for making payment of the amount under said dishonoured cheque that went un-complied with and thus filed the complaint case no. 32/1/12. 8 In all the three complaint cases, the complainant examined Mr. Sameer Kapoor, its authorized representative, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and relied upon the relevant documents. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 19.01.2013 (in CC no. 32/1) and vide impugned orders dated 09.01.2013 (in CC no. 462/1 & CC no. 463/1), the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under section 138 of NI Act and issued summons against the accused persons.
9 It is pertinent to note that during the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has taken almost similar grounds in all the above mentioned
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 18 of 30 revision petitions. The impugned orders have been assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists submitting that they are per se illegal and have been passed in total disregard to the settled principles of law and established procedure. He has assailed the impugned orders inter alia on the following grounds:
I.In CR No. 63/2/14, 64/2/14 and 65/2/14, the revisionist Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (in CC no. 32/1, 462/1 and 463/1) had already resigned from the accused company on 01.08.2011 whereas the cheques in question had been issued on 10.08.2012 and further cheques were dishonoured on 30.08.2012. II.In CR no. 66/2/14, the revisionist Mr. Debashish Ganguly (in CC no. 32/1) was only a Company Secretary and was not connected with the drawer company and only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under section 138 NI Act.
III.In CR no. 68/2/14, 69/2/14 and 70/2/14, the revisionist Mr. Mohan Lal Mittal (in CC no. 32/1, 462/1 and 463/1) had already resigned from the accused company on 31.10.2011 whereas the cheques in question had been issued on 10.08.2012 and further cheques were dishonoured on 30.08.2012. IV.In CR no. 71/2/14, 72/2/14 and 73/2/14, the revisionist Mr. Promod Mittal (in CC no. 32/1, 462/1 and 463/1) had issued the cheques, however, the complaint cases has not been filed by the payee or holder in due course or his attorney.
V.In CR no. 74/2/14, 75/2/14 and 76/2/14, the revisionist Mr. Rajib Das (in CC no. 32/1, 462/1 and 463/1) had been shown as a Director but no specific role
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 19 of 30 has been mentioned in the complaint cases.
VI. In CR no. 77/2/14 & 78/2/14, the revisionist Mr. Vinod Mittal (in CC no. 462/1 and 463/1) was mentioned as a Director of accused no. 1 company and accused no. 2 company, however, he was never a director in accused no. 1 company, had resigned much earlier from accused no. 2 company. It has been argued that he was never the Director of the drawer company. 10 It was also argued in general for all the revisions that:
(i) A very brief and omnibus summoning order was passed in CC no. 32/1.
(ii) The Ld. Trial Court did not conduct mandatory enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuance of process.
(iii) Verification of pre-summoning evidence was illegal i.e. in contravention to the provisions of section 297 Cr.P.C.
(iv) The impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner as all the accused persons have been summoned en masse without considering the role of every accused.
(v) Pre summoning evidence is itself illegal as the same is in contravention of section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
(vi)No vicarious liability can be attributed upon the revisionists except Mr. Pramod Mittal as the cheques in question had been issued from the account of accused no. 1 company/GSHL.
11 The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon some judgments in support of his contention which are as follows:-
(1)Udai Shanker Awasthi Vs State of UP, (2013) 2 SCC 435;
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 20 of 30 (2)Shivjee Singh Vs Nagendra Tiwari, (2010) 7 SCC 578;
(3)Bhushan Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424; (4)Santokh Singh @ Sokha Vs State of Punjab, 2003 CRI. L.J. 2925; (5)Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Kanti Moulding Machine, 2007 (1) ILR (Del) 1010;
(6)Devendra Vs State of UP, (2009) 7 SCC 495;
(7)Saravanan Vs State of Pondicherry, (2004) 13 SCC 238; (8)Judgment dated 13.01.1986 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc. (M) 1136/83 in case titled as Shri Ramlal Vs Shri Parvinder Singh; (9)S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr., 2005 III AD (Crl.) S.C. 593;
(10)Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited Vs State of Maharashtra (2009) 2 SCC 370;
(11)Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda, 2015 (2) JCC 1337; (12)N K Vahi Vs Shekhar Singh, 2007 (1) JCC (NI) 112;
(13)PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs Food Inspector, (2011) 1 SCC 176;
(14)Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs State of Maharashtra, 2015 (2) JCC (NI) 105;
(15)Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1400; (16)Order dated 06.05.2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. MC. No. 1821/2013 in case Sudeep Jain Vs M/s. ECE Industries Ltd. and (17)GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 21 of 30
505. 12 Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that vide order dated 20.01.2014, Sh Dharmesh Sharma, the then Ld. ASJ-01, PHC, ND in seven criminal revisions by co accused Uday Pratap Singh, Pankaj Kumar Aggarwal, Vinod Mittal and M/s. Global Steel Philippines (SPV- AMC) Inc. GSPI assailing the above said impugned order dated 19.01.2013, did not find any merit in the said revision petitions wherein almost identically the same pleas were taken as have been taken by the present revisionists. He argued that the said order dated 20.01.2014 of the Ld. Sessions Court was assailed by co accused Uday Pratap Singh in Criminal MC 466/2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, however, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relegated the said accused vide order dated 28.01.2014 to the trial court to urge the pleas taken therein before the trial court at the hearing on framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC and then the trial court would be under legal obligation to deal with the pleas raised. He further referred to the order dated 09.02.2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled as State Trading Corp. of India Ltd Vs Uday Pratap Singh & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal No. 4935/2014, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inter alia held that since it appeared that the Hon'ble High Court had specifically stated that it was for the trial court to frame or not to frame notice u/s 251 CrPC against Uday Pratap Singh, it was not necessary for the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to pass any further orders with further directions that the trial court shall be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with the provisions of law as deemed fit and
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 22 of 30 proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. He also referred to the judgment dated 19.02.2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in criminal MC 2707/2014 and criminal MC's 1534-37/2014, wherein, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed that the trial court shall promptly pass the orders on the question of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC on the date already fixed or on another short date. He argued that M/s. Global Steel Philippines (SPV-AMC) Inc. GSPI also filed a criminal revision petition challenging the summoning order dated 09.01.2013 and Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, the then Ld. ASJ-04, PHC, ND vide order dated 26.04.2014 set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 so far as it related to the summoning of M/s. Global Steel Philippines (SPV-AMC) Inc. GSPI. He argued that in criminal MC 2618/2014, in the matter of State Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs M/s. Global Steel Philippines Inc., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 04.03.2015, upon the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that let the impugned order be quashed to avoid any conflicting decision with liberty to the accused to urge the pleas available to the accused before the trial court at the time of hearing on the framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC, quashed the above said order dated 26.04.2014 to bring it at par with the case in criminal MC 2707/2014 to avoid any conflicting decision and the parties were given liberty to urge the pleas on merits taken herein before the trial court at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC. He further referred to the judgment dated 19.05.2015 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criminal MC 2000/2015 in case State Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs M/s. Global Steel Holding
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 23 of 30 Limited & Ors. Wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings u/s 138 NI Act and to make all endeavors to conclude it preferably within this calender year. In the light of above said history of these cases, the Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant argued that it would be in the interest of justice if this court also relegates the parties before the Ld. Trial court to argue on the contentions at the time of arguments on notice u/s 251 CrPC. He further stated at bar that the arguments on framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC have already been heard by the Ld. Trial court and the matter has been fixed for orders in that regard by the Ld. Trial court. 13 The Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has also fairly stated that the arguments on framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC have already been heard by the Ld. Trial court and the matter is fixed there for orders.
14 Perusal of record shows that co-accused persons i.e Uday Pratap Singh, Pankaj Kumar Aggarwal, M/s Global Steel Philippines (SPV-AMC) Inc. GSPI etc challenged the impugned order dated 19.01.2013 vide which they were also inter alia summoned to face the trial, however, Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, the then ld. ASJ-01, PHC, ND vide a common order dated 20.01.2014 dismissed the said revision petitions upholding the said impugned summoning order. It is pertinent to note that in the said revision petitions almost identically the same pleas were taken as have been taken in the revision petitions under consideration before this court. The said order dated 20.01.2014 of the learned Sessions Court was assailed by co-accused Uday Pratap Singh in Crl. MC 466/2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, however, the Hon'ble Delhi
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 24 of 30 High Court vide order dated 28.01.2014 held that the averments made in the petition were required to be considered at the stage of framing of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C which was yet to come. In the said order, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inter alia held as follows :
"............................. After hearing learned counsel for parties and on perusal of material on record, this court finds that the averments made in this petition are required to be considered at the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.PC which is yet to come......................................................In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar and Krishan Kumar (Supra) as referred to hereinabove and in view of the ground reality that this Court is being clogged by filing of such petitions, it is the need of the hour to direct petitioner to approach trial court, so that such petitioners instead of straightway rushing to this Court, ought to seek dropping of the proceedings by the trial court to ensure that summary trial in such like matters does not get unnecessarily delayed.
Petitioner is accordingly relegated to trial court to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the hearing on framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., and if it is so done, then trial court is under legal obligation to deal with the pleas raised herein while considering the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner's counsel and by passing a speaking and reasoned order. At the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., trial court is not expected to function like a post office and to mechanically frame Notice, but is rather bound by law to apply its mind to find
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 25 of 30 out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. It is being so said in view of observations of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.K.Bhalla Vs. State and Ors.(2011) 180 DLT 219 which reads as under:-
Therefore, it is inherent in Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that when an accused appears before the Trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 CrPC in a summons trial case, it is bounden duty of the trial court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet / complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused.
Needless to say, if trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner, then Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop proceedings against petitioner. It is so said because dropping of proceedings at Notice stage can not possibly be equated with recalling of summoning order.............................."
15 In Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No 4935/2014, the above said order dated 28.1.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was assailed, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter State Trading Corp. of India Ltd. Vs. Uday Pratap Singh & Anr. inter alia passed the following order dated 09.02.2015:-
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 26 of 30 "................ Since it appears to us that the High court has specifically stated that it is for the trial court to frame or not to frame Notice under Section 251 of The Cr.P.C. against Uday Pratap Singh, it is not necessary for us to pass any further orders.
The trial court shall be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with the provisions of law as deem fit and proper on the facts of the circumstances of the case............."
16 Further, vide judgment dated 19.02.2015, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CRI. MC 2707/14 and CRI. MC's 1534-1537/2014, inter alia directed that the trial court shall promptly pass the orders on the question of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C on the date already fixed or on another short date. 17 Co-accused M/s Global Steel Philippines (SPV-AMC) Inc. GSPI also filed a Criminal Revision with no. 67/2/14 in CC no. 462/1 challenging the summoning order dated 09.01.2013 before the court of Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, the then learned Addl. Sessions Judge-04, PHC, ND and vide order dated 26.04.2014, the said petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 so far as it related to the summoning of M/s Global Steel Philippines (SPV-AMC) Inc. GSPI was set aside and quashed. The said order dated 26.04.2014 was assailed by State Trading Corp. of India Ltd. (respondent in the present Revision Petitions). Perusal of order dated 04.03.2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court shows that it was inter alia held as follows :-
"..........................During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent-
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 27 of 30 accused has placed on record copy of order of 19th February, 2015 in CRL. M.C. 2707/2014 titled The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. V. Global Steel Holdings Ltd. Etc. Etc. whereby the parties have been given liberty to argue on merits at the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent-accused that to avoid any conflicting decision, let the impugned order be quashed with liberty to respondent-accused to urge the pleas available to respondent-accused before the trial court at the time of hearing on the framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.. In view of the stand taken as aforesaid, impugned order of 24th April, 2014 is quashed to bring this case at par with case in CRL.M.C. 2707/2014 to avoid any conflicting decision.
This petition is disposed of with liberty to parties to urge the pleas on merits taken herein before the trial court at the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. "
18 Moreover, vide judgment dated 19.05.2015 in CRL.M.C 2000/2015 in matter of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. vs. M/s Global Steel Holding Limited and Ors., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further directed the learned trial court to expedite the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act and to make all endeavours to conclude it preferably within this calender year. 19 It is thus evident that on almost the similar pleas of co-accused as raised by the revisionists in the revision petitions under consideration, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide above said order dated 28.1.2014 has directed to approach the learned trial court to urge the pleas before the learned trial court
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 28 of 30 at the hearing on framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C with a legal obligation cast upon the learned trial court to deal with the pleas raised herein with further directions that if the learned trial court found that no case was made out against them, then the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Adalat Prasad (Supra) would not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against the accused persons. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 09.02.2015, as discussed above, did not pass any further orders holding that since it appeared that the Hon'ble High court (in order dated 28.01.2014) had specifically stated that it was for the trial court to frame or not to frame Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C, hence, it was not necessary to pass any further orders with liberty granted to the trial court to pass any order in accordance with the provisions of law as it deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, as discussed above, vide order dated 04.03.2015, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has given liberty to the parties to urge the pleas on merits before the trial court at the stage of framing of Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. Further, vide judgment dated 19.05.2015, as discussed above, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings under Section 138 N.I.Act and to made all endeavours to conclude it preferably within this calender year. It has been mentioned at bar by both the parties that the learned trial court has already heard the arguments upon framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the matter has been reserved for orders.
20 In view of the above said orders/judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 29 of 30 India and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it would be in the interest of justice that in terms of the directions as contained in the above mentioned orders/judgments and to avoid any conflicting opinion, the averments raised in the present revision petitions are required to be considered by the learned trial court at the stage of framing of Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C, which is yet to come. The revisionists / petitioners are accordingly relegated to learned trial court to urge the pleas taken herein before the learned trial court at the hearing on framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and for that purpose the learned trial court is directed to hear further arguments, if so required, and thereafter the learned trial court would be under legal obligation to deal with the said pleas as detailed in order dated 28.01.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 21 All the above said revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. It is pertinent to mention that nothing mentioned in this order shall be a reflection upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either side at the hearing on the framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
22 TCR be sent back immediately along with copy of this order. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 13.08.2015 at 10.00 a.m. 23 Revision files be consigned to record room as per rules and signed copy of this order be placed in all the files.
Announced in the open
Court on 11.08.2015 (AMIT BANSAL)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
NEW DELHI DISTRICT/ PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI.
1.CR No. 63/2/14 PS Connaught Place 2.CR No. 64/2/14 PS Connaught Place
3.CR No. 65/2/14 PS Connaught Place 4.CR No. 66/2/14 PS Connaught Place
5.CR No. 68/2/14 PS Connaught Place 6.CR No. 69/2/14 PS Connaught Place
7.CR No. 70/2/14 PS Connaught Place 8.CR No. 71/2/14 PS Connaught Place
9.CR No. 72/2/14 PS Connaught Place 10.CR No. 73/2/14 PS Connaught Place
11.CR No. 74/2/14 PS Connaught Place 12.CR No. 75/2/14 PS Connaught Place
13.CR No. 76/2/14 PS Connaught Place 14.CR No. 77/2/14 PS Connaught Place
15.CR No. 78/2/14 PS Connaught Place Page no. 30 of 30