Gurpreet Singh vs M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3559 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                      Date of Reserve: 7th July, 2010

                          Date of Order: 2nd August, 2010

                               + Crl. M.C. 429 of 2009
%                                                                                  02.08.2010
        Gurpreet Singh                                                     ...Petitioner
        Through: Mr.Ashish Upadhyay, Advocate

        Versus

        M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.                               ...Respondents
        Through: Mr. Deepak K, Advocates


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?



                                       JUDGMENT

1. By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner sought

quashing of an order dated 17th March, 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge

in a revision whereby he allowed revision of respondent herein against the order

of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22nd May, 2007 dismissing a complaint

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The main ground of attack made by the petitioner against the order of

learned Sessions Judge is that the order of dismissal of complaint passed by

learned MM amounted to acquittal of the petitioner and no revision was

maintainable against the order of acquittal and only an appeal was maintainable.

Crl.MC 429/2009 Gurpreet Singh v M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. Page 1 Of 3

3. I have perused the orders passed by learned MM after summoning of

accused. A perusal of these orders would show that the learned MM proceeded

with the case as if it was a summon trial case and after issuing notice asked the

complainant to again lead evidence despite the fact that the evidence by way of

affidavit of complainant was already on record. The Legislature has specifically

made offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as a summary

trial and once the accused is summoned, he has to state his plea and state his

defence in terms of Section 263 (g) read with Section 251 Cr.P.C. The summary

trial proceedings can be converted to summon trial case only under two

circumstances, firstly when the Court comes to a conclusion that the sentence of

one year would be inadequate and it was a case where sentence of more than

one year may be required to be awarded, secondly when the MM is of the view

for some reason (to be recorded) that the case should be tried as a summon trial.

In the present case none of the two things happened. The learned MM did not

pass an order as to why the case was to be converted to a summon trial. The

learned MM was bound to follow procedure of summary trial and was bound to

treat the affidavit and evidence already filed by the complainant on record as the

evidence sufficient to convict the accused unless accused had pleaded a tenable

defence and accused was prepared to prove the defence. The learned MM

therefore went wrong in posting the case repeatedly for complainant's evidence,

without asking the accused/petitioner as to what was the his defence. Since the

learned trial court committed a grave error in treating this case as a summon trial

case, the order of learned MM suffered from jurisdictional error and was liable to

be set aside in revision. The learned Sessions Judge, though for different

Crl.MC 429/2009 Gurpreet Singh v M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. Page 2 Of 3 reasons, had allowed the revision, I consider that this Court need not interfere

into the order of learned Sessions Judge. Directions are hereby given to learned

MM to treat the present case as a summary trial case and the complainant's

evidence, already given during inquiry at pre-summoning stage should be treated

as evidence at post-summoning stage in terms of Section 145 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and in terms of Section 263(2) of Cr.P.C (summary trial

proceedings) and the petitioner should be asked to lead evidence in defence.

(See judgment titled "Rajesh Aggarwal v State and another Crl.M.C. 1996 of

2010 decided on 28th July, 2010).

4. I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no

orders to costs.

August 02, 2010                                             SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Crl.MC 429/2009             Gurpreet Singh v M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.   Page 3 Of 3