Delhi High Court
The National Small Industries ... vs M/S. Akriti Industries & Ors. on 25 May, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.05.2012
+ CRL.L.P. 280/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
M/S. AKRITI INDUSTRIES & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 281/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
M/S. AKRITI INDUSTRIES & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this common order, the two connected matters are being disposed of.
These petitions under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., are
filed seeking leave to appeal against the orders dated 06.02.2012 passed by the
Court of Ld. M.M. in the Complaints, which were filed by the petitioner against
the respondents under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the
'Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complaints were filed by the petitioner
against the respondents in the year 2003 and 2004, due to the dishonor of 02
cheques issued in discharge of their contractual liability, and summons were
issued to the respondents by the Trial Court on 20.10.2003 & 16.10.2004. The
events that unfolded after the issuance of summons against the respondents
paint a sordid picture of the affairs in the legal department of the petitioner
company. On 06.01.2007, notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed against
the accused/respondent No. 2 to which they have pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The case was thereafter adjourned for after notice complainant
evidence for 06.09.2007 on which date, the case was further adjourned for cross
examination of CW1 for 15.2.2008. On 31.10.2008, proxy counsel for the
petitioner/complainant had appeared and thereafter, the said matter was
transferred to the newly constituted court of M.M. Thereafter, it was further
transferred on 26.4.2010 and 9.11.2010 to the new court of M.M but neither the
petitioner nor the main counsel of the petitioner was present on this date and it
was contended that the counsel for the petitioner did not inform the A.R. of the
petitioner corporation in this regard. It was contended that the earlier counsel
for the petitioner had misguided the petitioner corporation and he falsely
assured the petitioner that the case was running properly and never
communicated to the petitioner about the non-appearance of its A.R. before the
court of M.M. It was sought to be contended that because of all this, its cases
remained unattended for last seven consequent dates of hearing till the
impugned order came to be passed on 6.2.2012. It is stated that the Advocate
engaged by the petitioner did not inform them about the status of the cases
despite several requests made. It was further submitted that the legal cases of
petitioner company were transferred to Noida, U.P. in the year 2007 and in the
process, some files got misplaced and could not be followed up properly.
3. Next submission of the counsel for the petitioner was that in December 2011,
the AR of the petitioner Corporation was transferred and the person substituted
in his place made several attempts to know the status of the cases, but failed to
do so. Even on the date of passing of the impugned orders, neither the A.R. of
the petitioner nor his counsel was present in the court which finally led to the
dismissal of the cases in default and for non prosecution of the respondents,
resulting in acquittal of respondents.
4. The present petitions and the applications for condonation of delay have been
filed after the lapse of 28 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
advanced reasons such as absence of their main counsel on the date fixed in the
trial court, not giving of intimation by the counsel engaged by the petitioner
about the status of the cases, transfer of the AR assigned to the cases and lastly
the bifurcation of the courts for the inaction and delay on their part.
5. From the perusal of these petitions, the apathy of the Department in pursuing
these cases is palpable. The petitioner is a Govt. Corporation having a separate
legal department to handle its cases, but the lethargy in the department not only
prevails there, but is writ large on their manner of working. It is not only
surprising, but shocking to note that the complainant/petitioner did not bother to
appear before the Court on numerous occasions and now the buck is fervently
tried to be passed on from one counsel to another, engaged by the petitioner.
The summons in the case were issued way back in 2003 and 2004, but the case
could not even reach to the initial stage of leading pre-summoning evidence due
to the apathetic attitude of the petitioner.
6. There has not been a single instance where a case has been dismissed in default
due to the transfer of the case or due to bifurcation of the courts and work has
been smoothly carried out in all the courts, regardless of any transition. This
contention of the counsel for the petitioner is absurd and totally unacceptable.
Minor issues like absence of their main counsel on the date fixed in the trial
court, not giving of intimation by the counsel engaged by the petitioner about
the status of the cases, transfer of the AR are being tried to be raked for
covering up such serious and continued lapses on the part of the petitioner. In
the given circumstances, the trial Court was constrained to dismiss the cases for
non prosecution. This indifference on the part of the petitioner has resulted in
the loss of huge public money. The petitioner even did not mend its ways after
the dismissal of the complaint cases, which is apparent from the delay in filing
the present leave petitions and applications for condonation of delay.
7. Giving too much latitude to such institutions, ignoring the unaccountable,
unjustified and unacceptable delay is one of the primary reasons for the
mounting arrears in the Courts. The petitioner must be held responsible for the
inaction and lack of co-ordination amongst its department and cannot be
allowed to wriggle out of its omissions. The flimsy grounds taken up by the
counsel for the petitioner are untenable.
8. The petitions being without any merit are hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
MAY 25, 2012/akb
