Delhi High Court
Niaz Mohammad vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 1 September, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 1st September , 2010
+ Crl. Rev. No.476/2010
% 01.09.2010
Niaz Mohammad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. Masroor Alam Khan for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
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?
ORAL
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the
petitioner for setting aside the judgment of the appellate court dated 9th June 2010
dismissing an appeal of the petitioner against his conviction under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The plea taken in the revision petition is that after the conviction, the complainant
in this case made a statement before the Commercial Civil Judge that he has settled his
disputes with the accused for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- as full and final amount in case
bearing number 6586/1 and he had received Rs.1 lac in 2004 and he received a draft of
Rs.2,15,000/- on 14th August, 2010 and a sum of Rs.10,000/-in cash. The complainant
also stated that he would help the accused to get the complaint compounded before the
High Court.
3. On the basis of this statement made by the complainant, the petitioner wants that
No. Crl.Rev.P.476/2010 Niaz Mohammad v The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 1 Of 2
his revision be allowed and he be acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act for which he has already been convicted by the trial court
and appeal stands dismissed.
4. A perusal of judgment and order passed by learned appellate court would show
that the revision petitioner was in fact acting as a conduit for illegal gratification. It is his
own case that he received Rs.4 lac from the complainant to enable the complainant to
get a job with MCD and out of this Rs.4 lac, Rs.2 lac were paid by accused to one Lalit
Singh for re-employment of the complainant and remaining Rs.2 lac were kept by him. In
order to give surety to the complainant that his work would be done otherwise the money
would be refunded, cheques of Rs.4 lac were issued to the complainant. When the work
of the complainant was not done with MCD, the complainant put these cheques in the
bank and the cheques got dishnoured.
5. The case of the complainant has been that the petitioner had taken a loan and
issued cheques against the loan amount, which later on got dishonoured. Looking at the
admission of the accused that he was indulging into illegal activities of bribing MCD
officials, as a broker and had admittedly received Rs.4 lac and against this amount
cheques were issued, I consider that the present revision petition deserves outright
dismissal. The court cannot show latitude to the person who admittedly acted as broker
for giving bribes to officials and lured complainant to fall his pray with assurance of
getting his work done. I find no force in this revision petition, the revision petition is
hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.
September 01, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
No. Crl.Rev.P.476/2010 Niaz Mohammad v The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 2 Of 2
