Delhi High Court
The State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Global Steel Holdings Ltd. Etc. on 19 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~12, 16, 17, 18 & 20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 19, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 2707/2014
THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney
General, with Mr.
K.Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash
Panedy, Mr. Ranjeet and Mr.
Arunima Pal, Advocates
versus
GLOBAL STEEL HOLDINGS LTD ETC.ETC .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Baghla,
Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Gautam
Mitha, Advocates
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 1534/2014 & Crl.M.As.5193/2014, 12346/14
UDAY PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Baghla,
Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Gautam
Mitha, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
CRL.M.Cs. 2707, 1534, 1537, 1535 & 1536 of 2014 Page 1
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney
General, with Mr.
K.Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash
Panedy, Mr. Ranjeet and Mr.
Arunima Pal, Advocates for
respondent No.2
+ (iii) CRL.M.C. 1537/2014 & Crl.M.As.5202/14, 12326/14
UDAY PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Baghla,
Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Gautam
Mitha, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney
General, with Mr. K.
Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash
Panedy, Mr. Ranjeet and Mr.
Arunima Pal, Advocates for
respondent No.2
+ (iv) CRL.M.C. 1535/2014 & Crl.M.As.5195/14, 12349/14
GLOBAL STEEL PHILIPPINES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Baghla,
CRL.M.Cs. 2707, 1534, 1537, 1535 & 1536 of 2014 Page 2
Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Gautam
Mitha, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney
General, with Mr. K.
Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash
Panedy, Mr. Ranjeet and Mr.
Arunima Pal, Advocates for
respondent No.2
+ (v) CRL.M.C. 1536/2014 & Crl.M.As.5200/14, 12342/14
M/S GLOBAL STEEL PHILIPPINES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Baghla,
Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Gautam
Mitha, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney
General, with Mr. K.
Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash
Panedy, Mr. Ranjeet and Mr.
Arunima Pal, Advocates for
respondent No.2
CRL.M.Cs. 2707, 1534, 1537, 1535 & 1536 of 2014 Page 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above
captioned five petitions were heard together and by this common
judgment, they are being disposed of.
In the above-captioned first petition, the challenge is to trial court's
order of 28th February, 2014 vide which respondent-accused persons have
been exempted from appearing till the hearing on framing of Notice
under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. is concluded. In the remaining four
petitions, the challenge is to the impugned order vide which petitioners'
revision petition against summoning order of 9 th January, 2013 has been
dismissed by the revisional court vide impugned order of 20th January,
2014.
While entertaining the above-captioned two petitions preferred by
Uday Pratap Singh and the remaining two petitions preferred by M/s.
Global Steel Philippines, the operation of the impugned order of 20 th
January, 2014 was stayed.
At the hearing, it was submitted by both the sides that in pursuance
to order of 28th January, 2014 in Crl. M.C.466/2014 titled Uday Pratap
Singh v. State & Anr., trial court has already heard the parties in these
cases as well and now, the matter is coming up before trial court for order
on point of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. on 25 th
February, 2015.
CRL.M.Cs. 2707, 1534, 1537, 1535 & 1536 of 2014 Page 4
It was brought to the notice of this Court that aforesaid order of
28th January, 2014 in Uday Pratap (supra) has been affirmed by Apex
Court in SLP (Crl.) No.4935/2014 titled State Trading Corp. of India Ltd.
V. Uday Pratap Singh & Anr. on 9th February, 2015 with the modification
that the exemption from personal appearance granted by this Court has
been vacated and the accused has been directed to appear before trial
court, if not already appeared.
On behalf of petitioner-State Trading Corporation India Ltd, it is
submitted that in view of Apex Court's order of 9 th February, 2015,
exemption from personal appearance granted to respondent-M/s. Global
Steel Holdings Ltd. (GSHL) and its Chairman/Directors deserves to be
vacated.
Learned senior counsel for respondent- M/s. Global Steel Holdings
Ltd. (GSHL) relies upon decision of this Court in M.D. Jindal v. Angad
Paul & Ors. ILR Supp. 12 (2007) Delhi 15, decision of Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Dasari House of Publications Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s. Apple
Credit Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad and Anr. 2002 Crl. L.J. 4751,
decision of Calcutta High Court in Ajit Kumar Chakrabarty and Ors. V.
Serampore Municipality and Ors. 1989 (1) Crime Page 411 and Apex
Court's decision in M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V. M/s. Bhiwani Denim
& Apparels Ltd. & Ors. 2001 [2] JCC [SC] 127 to submit that in a case
like the instant one, the personal exemption of the Chairman/Director of
the accused-company ought to be dispensed with as counsel on their
behalf appears so that the proceedings are not halted.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the Apex Court's order of 9 th
February, 2015, as referred to above, the decisions cited and the material
CRL.M.Cs. 2707, 1534, 1537, 1535 & 1536 of 2014 Page 5
on record, I find that in terms of Apex Court's order of 9 th February,
2015, accused persons are required to be appear before trial court.
Consequentially, the interim order exempting accused persons from
appearance before trial court is hereby vacated. Order of 30th July, 2014
staying the operation of the impugned order in the remaining four
petitions is also vacated. Let the parties appear before trial court on 25 th
February, 2015. Needless to say, trial court shall promptly pass the orders
on the question of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. on the
date already fixed or on another short date.
With aforesaid observations, the above-captioned five petitions and
the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
s
CRL.M.Cs. 2707, 1534, 1537, 1535 & 1536 of 2014 Page 6
