M/S.Snam Electrical Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs M/S. Mahavir Electricals & Power ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3818 Del

$~41,50&51
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          Date of decision: 20th August, 2014

+      CRL. M.C. 3402/2014 & CRL. M.A. 11765/2014
M/S. SNAM ELECTRICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.                        .....Petitioners
                        versus
M/S. MAHAVIR ELECTRICALS & POWER
SYSTEMS CONTROLS                                            .....Respondent


+      CRL. M.C. 1276/2014 & CRL. M.A. 4338/2014

M/S. SNAM ELECTRICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.                        .....Petitioners
               versus

M/S. MAHAVIR ELECTRICALS & POWER
SYSTEMS CONTROLS                                            .....Respondent

+      CRL. M.C. 3403/2014 & CRL. M.A. 11767/2014


M/S. SNAM ELECTRICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.                        .....Petitioners
                        versus
M/S. MAHAVIR ELECTRICALS & POWER
SYSTEMS CONTROLS                                            .....Respondent


Present:       Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay S.
               Chhabra and Mr. Sunav Rastogi, Advocates.

               Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advocate for respondent.


Crl.M.C. No.3402/2014, 1276/2014 & 3403/2014                    Page 1 of 5
 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. No.11768/2014 in Crl. M.C. No.3403/2014

The exemption application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

Crl. M.C. Nos. 3402/2014, 1276/2014 & 3403/2014

1. These are three petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against orders dated 07.02.2014 and 06.03.2014 both passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Central-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in three different complaint cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Since all the three petitions are against the common orders dated 07.02.2014 and 06.03.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Central-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and between the same parties, therefore, all the three petitions are being disposed of together.

3. In short, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed three complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners in respect of dishonour of different cheques. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P. C. was framed against the petitioners on

15.09.2011. Thereafter the respondent/ complainant adduced its evidence and the case was adjourned for defence evidence.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that on 14.02.2013, a witness from VAT department namely, Mr. Ram Karan was present but he was not examined and was discharged. The witness was bound down for the next date and summons were issued to another witness namely, Shri Ram Kishore Jain. He further submits that the summons issued to Shri Ram Kishore Jain was returned back unserved. The other witness summoned by the petitioners was Shri Anil Kumar Ray, who was discharged without examination. He also submits that Mr. Karan Singh, LDC from Sales Tax Department was present on 06.04.2013 but he was not examined. He further submits that on 20.07.2013, Shri Ram Karan was discharged without examination. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the other witness Shri R. P. Yadav, Record Keeper from Sales Tax Department was present on 07.09.2013 and he was discharged without examination on 07.11.2013. He further submits that again on 04.01.2014 Sh. Ram Pal from the office of Sales Tax was discharged without examination.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that on 13.01.2014 an application for summoning the witness was filed. He also submits that vide order dated 7.2.0214 a witness namely, Sh. Ram Pal Yadav, Clerk from Ward No.15, VAT Department was present and his statement was recorded and the summons issued to Sh. Ram Kishore Jain were received back unserved and the Trial Court closed the defence evidence. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an

application seeking recalling of order dated 07.02.2014 and permission to summon Sh. Ram Kishore Jain, which was dismissed by learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.03.2014.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners wishes to examine Sh. Ram Kishore Jain only to prove the documents, which have already been placed on record. He also submits that he will make efforts to serve the said witness. He further submits that the total amount involved in all the three cases is Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One lakhs) out of which the petitioners has already deposited a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs) with the Registrar General of this Court in civil proceedings. He also submits that in terms of order dated 14.03.2014 passed by this Court, the petitioners have also deposited the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) by way of fixed deposit receipt.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection if one opportunity is granted to the petitioners for examination of defence witness namely, Sh. Ram Kishore Jain.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the Trial Court shall afford one effective opportunity to petitioners to examine Sh. Ram Kishore Jain as a defence witness. It is made clear that the petitioners will take dasti summons of the said witness and will try to serve the witness in addition to the summons to be issued by process serving agency.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A. No. 11765/2014 Crl. M.A No. 4338/2014 Crl.M.A. No. 11767/2014 All the three applications are dismissed as infructuous.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2014 hs