Delhi High Court
M/S Indian Petrochemicals ... vs M/S Swadeshi Polytex Limited & Anr on 24 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24th April, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 550/2017
M/S INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS
CORPORATION LTD ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Manoj Arora and Mr.
Siddharth Shankar, Advocates.
versus
M/S SWADESHI POLYTEX LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Ghose and Mr.
Rhishabh Jetley, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Having perused the impugned judgment dated 10 th July, 2017
whereby on the day the evidence of the complainant was closed, statement
of the accused was recorded and as per the learned counsel for the
complainant without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the
impugned judgment was passed. Thus this Court deems it fit to grant leave
to appeal.
2. Petition is disposed of granting leave to the petitioner.
Crl.A.No. /2018
1. Registry is directed to number the appeal.
2. Admit.
3. Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act impleading respondent No. 1 company as a party besides its Managing
Directors, Directors etc. During the course of the proceedings which
lingered on from 2000 to 2017 either some of the other directors passed
away and proceedings qua them abated or they were dropped by the
appellant. Thus, finally only respondent No. 1 was continued as an accused.
4. The order sheets of the Learned Trial Court reveals that the
proceedings dragged on as noted above for a period of 17 years and vide
order dated 10th July, 2017 the learned Trial Court noted that authorised
representative of the complainant is cross-examined and discharged. Though
an adjournment was sought by learned counsel for the complainant for
remaining complainant's evidence, however, as the matter related to the year
2000 and last opportunity had already been granted to the appellant to
conclude its evidence and despite availing several opportunity the
complainant had not concluded its evidence since framing of the notice
under Section 251 Cr.P.C on 18th December, 2010 and in view of the
circular dated 5th June, 2017 issued by the learned District and Sessions
Judge no adjournment was granted and complainant's evidence was closed.
On the same day the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the statement
of authorised representative of respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C and by
the separate judgment of the same date acquitted the respondent of offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. The limited grievance of the appellant is that having not been granted
any opportunity to address arguments grave miscarriage of justice has been
caused. Though this fact is refuted by learned counsel for the respondent
who states that from the Para 5 of impugned judgment dated 10 th July, 2017
it is evident that final arguments had already been heard, however, as noted
above the learned Trial Court on the same day after closing the
complainant's evidence and recording the statement of authorised
representative of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceeded to pass
the impugned judgment.
6. No doubt opportunity to address arguments would have been
rendered, however the same cannot be said to be a fair opportunity as at least
one date ought to have been given to the learned counsel to clarify the entire
evidence and address arguments on the evidence led by it.
7. Considering the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
Judge dated 10th July, 2017 this Court deems it fit that one opportunity be
granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to address final arguments.
8. Consequently the impugned judgment dated 10 th July, 2017 is set
aside. Parties and their counsels will appear before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate on 28th May, 2018 for addressing final arguments whereafter a
judgment will be rendered by the learned Trial Court.
9. It is clarified that no adjournment will be granted on 10 th July, 2017
even if prayed by any of the parties and if the learned Trial Court is not in a
position to hear arguments on the said date he would grant another date
when the matter can be heard and decided.
10. The appellant will not be entitled to lead any additional evidence or
produce any material which has already not been exhibited.
11. It is clarified that the impugned judgment has been set aside only for
the reason that as per the order dated 10th July, 2017 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate it is not evident that an opportunity of hearing final
argument was granted. The setting aside of the impugned judgment dated
10th July, 2017 is no reflection on the merits of the complaint.
12. Appeal is disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 24, 2018
'yo'
