Delhi District Court
Asj03 (East) Karkardooma Courts vs M/S. Pvr Infotech on 1 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ03 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 75/12
M/s. Hotline Electronics Ltd.
Corporate office D2, Sector8,
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
2. Anuj Gupta
Director/Signatory
M/s. Hotline Electronics Ltd.
Corporate Office D2, Sector8,
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
also at
Plot No.8A, Udyog Vihar,
Part 1 & 2, Greater Noida,
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. ............ Revisionist
Versus
1. M/s. PVR Infotech,
Through its partner Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal,
F22A, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110092. ............ Respondent
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose off the revision petition filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the order dt. 17.03.12, whereby the CR No. 75/12 Page 1 of 6 Hotline Electronics Vs. PVR Infotech Ld. ACMM had allowed the application of respondent/complainant u/s. 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) and disallowed the application of revisionist/accused u/s. 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) but has given no finding on the application of the revisionist/ accused under section 145 (2) of NI Act.
2. The case of the revisionist is that the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint u/s. 138 NI Act in which, an application was filed by the revisionist for summoning of the FSL report before framing of notice, so that he could show that the cheque under dispute was a forged instrument. An application u/s. 143 NI Act was filed by the complainant seeking trial of the case as summons case, and another application was filed by the revisionist/accused for recalling of the witnesses of complainant for their crossexamination. While the application of the complainant was allowed, the application of revisionist/accused u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and no order was passed on application of revisionist/ accused u/s 145(2) NI Act.
3. Arguments were heard. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused argued that the respondent/complainant had forged the cheque in dispute regarding which an FIR was also lodged and so it was requested that the CR No. 75/12 Page 2 of 6 Hotline Electronics Vs. PVR Infotech record of FSL be summoned to conclude genuineness of the impugned cheque.
4. He also argued that after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. State, Crl. M.C No. 1996/2010, all the cases u/s. 138 NI Act are being tried by the courts as summary triable cases. The court, if it opts for the other way of trial (the summons trial), it has to record an order disclosing the reasons for the shift from the ordinary course. He argued that since the affidavit of the complainant is on record, the complainant cannot be allowed to give further evidence and the case cannot be converted into a summons triable case on whims and fancies of the complainant. He also argued that the accused on the other hand has a right to crossexamine the witness as per the provisions of section 145(2) of NI Act.
5. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the discretion to try a matter as a summary triable or summons triable, rests with the court. He also argued that at the time when the complaint was filed by the complainant, all the courts were following the procedure of summons triable cases and therefore, the complainant had filed the case as it should have for the purposes of a summons triable case. He argued CR No. 75/12 Page 3 of 6 Hotline Electronics Vs. PVR Infotech that if the complainant could foresee that his complaint may, in future, be tried summarily which was not the procedure being adopted by the Courts at that point of time he would have filed all his documents at the time of filing of the complaint. The complaint in the instant case is of the year 2009 and the judgment, being referred to by the revisionist in Rajesh Aggarwal's case (Supra) was passed on 28.07.2010. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court is itself reflecting that the summary triable procedure was not being adopted by the courts till then. The relevant para 8 of the judgment is quoted hereunder.
" The procedure being followed presently by learned MMs under section 138 NI Act does not commensurate with the summary trial provisions of Cr.P.C and provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act and that is the reason that decisions of cases under section 138 of N.I Act is taking unnecessary long time and the complaints remain pending for years."
6. Thus there is strength in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that since the courts were not adhering to the summary trial procedure, the complainant had not prepared his case as per the requirements of summary trial, and so he deserved a right to prove his CR No. 75/12 Page 4 of 6 Hotline Electronics Vs. PVR Infotech case as per the law, which was being followed prior to the judgment in Rajesh Aggarwal's (supra) case.
7. There was apparently nothing wrong in allowing the complainant to lead the evidence as in summons triable case, to be fair to him since the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, by virtue whereof the procedure adopted by the courts changed, came into being, after the filing of the complaint by him. So far as the application of the revisionist u/s. 145 (2) NI Act is concerned, it stood allowed, the moment the case got converted into a summons triable case. Once the witnesses of complainant come to depose in the court, the accused automatically gets his right to crossexamine them as per the law applicable to summons triable cases. The application of revisionist/accused seeking permission to cross examine the complainant's witnesses, therefore, is deemed allowed after allowing of the application of complainant/respondent.
8. The finding of Ld. Trial Court on the application of accused/revisionist u/s. 91 Cr.P.C is also well founded in view of the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the right of the accused to produce the document at the sage of framing of charge/notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in JT 2004(10)SC303, State vs D.N.Pani has CR No. 75/12 Page 5 of 6 Hotline Electronics Vs. PVR Infotech held that the accused cannot be allowed to bring the documents in his defence at the stage of framing of charge/notice. Further the present case being a summons triable case, there is no right with the appellant even to argue the matter at the stage of notice as per section 251 of Cr.P.C. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order of Ld. Trial Court. Revision petition is dismissed.
9. Revision petition be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back with a copy of the order.
Announced in the open court on 01.11.12 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ) ASJ03, (EAST) KKD COURTS, DELHI/01.11.12 CR No. 75/12 Page 6 of 6 Hotline Electronics Vs. PVR Infotech