Delhi High Court
Sant Prasad Ojha vs Texmaco Limited & Anr. on 14 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.Rev.P. No.560/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 14th March, 2012
SANT PRASAD OJHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
TEXMACO LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur and Mr. Pratik Malik,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 05.03.2012, this Court has passed the following
order:
"1. Learned counsel for the applicant/convict submits that
vide judgment dated 25.02.2010, the applicant was held guilty
and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 630 of
the Companies Act, 1956. Vide order on sentence dated
15.3.2010, by recording that convict was paying a licence fee of
Rs.3.75ps per month regarding property which he was holding
a quarter since 30.11.1996. A fine of Rs.500/- per month has
been imposed on him from December, 1996 onwards for each
of the month till the date of order. The period comes to 13
years and 3 months i.e.. 159 months and the fine comes to
Rs.79,500/- (159x500). In default of payment of fine he shall
undergo SI for six months. Accordingly, applicant was granted
one month's time to deposit fine amount failing which convict
would be taken into custody to undergo sentence of default.
Vide said order, it is further directed to hand over vacant
possession of the property in question to the complainant on or
before 15.04.2010 failing which he shall undergo SI for two
years also.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn
attention of this Court to order dated 25.02.2010 whereby
learned ACMM has corrected the error in the order on
sentence dated 15.3.2010 and recorded as under:
"This application has been filed by the complainant
seeking correction of the clerical and arithmetical error in
the order dated 15.3.2010. Counsel for the convict is now
stated to be not available at 2 PM, whereas despite several
calls since morning, it was stated that counsel for convict
is coming. No justification for adjournment. It is pointed
out that in the order dated 15.3.2010, the date of cessation
of the services of convict is wrongly mentioned as
30.11.1996 instead of 01.12.1983. The said date be
accordingly treated as corrected in this regard.
Accordingly, even the arithmetical calculation regarding
per month fine also is wrongly mentioned as Rs.79,500/-
instead of Rs.1,57,000/-. U/s 362 of Cr.PC, clerical or
arithmetical error can be corrected. Accordingly, the
above correction be read in the order dated 15.3.2010 and
the date of cessation of service be read as 01.12.1983 and
the total fine be read as Rs.1,57,000/-. This order shall
form part of order dated 15.3.2010.Copy of this order be
supplied to the convict/non-applicant free of cost duly
certified by the Reader. Application is disposed of. File be
consigned to Record Room."
3. Being aggrieved, the applicant/convict assailed the
judgment/order before the Court of Sessions and vide judgment
dated 30.4.2010 the same was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuance
to the directions issued by the trial court, quarter in question
was vacated by the applicant/convict.
5. He is 74 years of age and hard of hearing. He has no
other source of income and therefore, he is unable to pay the
entire amount of Rs.1.75 lacs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will take
instructions as to how much and in what manner he would
deposit the amount with the respondent.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits that petitioner is
75 years of age and hard of hearing. He has no other source of income.
Therefore, he would not be able to pay the entire amount i.e. Rs.1.75 Lac.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that somehow, petitioner had borrowed
some amount from his relatives or friends and could collect Rs.25,000/- only
from them. Therefore, he has humbly prayed that the order on sentence
dated 25.02.2010 and 15.03.2010 appellate order dated 30.04.2010 may be
modified to the extent that he shall pay Rs.25,000/-.
4. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that as the petitioner has no source
of income, on humanitarian ground, the prayer of the petitioner be
considered.
5. Mr. Mohit Mathur, ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that if the
prayer of the petitioner is allowed, then it will set a precedent for the rest of
the accused, as the company has filed number of cases and the aggrieved
persons would approach in the same fashion and it would be a great loss to
the company.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had enjoyed number of
years and did not pay the license fee, therefore, substantial amount may be
directed to be paid to respondent no. 1.
7. Further submitted that if this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of
the petitioner, it is to be recorded that this prayer is accepted in exceptional
circumstances and not to be considered as precedent.
8. Keeping the old age, physical disability of the petitioner and the fact
that he has no source of income, on humanitarian grounds, order dated
25.02.2010 and 15.03.2010 and appellate order dated 30.04.2010 are
modified to the extent that he shall pay Rs.25,000/- to respondent within two
weeks from today. In default of payment of the aforesaid amount, he shall
undergo one month SI.
9. No further order is required.
10. Crl. Rev. P. 560/2011 stands disposed of.
11. Dasti.
CRL. M.B. 2185/2011
In view of above, no further adjudication is required in the application
and the same is accordingly disposed of.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 14, 2012
Jg
