Delhi High Court
Sanjay Jain vs State & Anr. on 16 July, 2018
$~30-33, 35 and 36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1486/2016 & Crl. M.A. 6366-6367/2016
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Shekhar Pathak, Shailesh Pandey, Hemlata
Kharayat, Barkha Rastogi, Ms. Chandni
Kumari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State
Ms. Archana Lakhotia and Mr. Ravinder
Parsad, Advocates for R-2
+ CRL.M.C. 1490/2016 & Crl. M.A. 6374/2016
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Shekhar Pathak, Shailesh Pandey, Hemlata
Kharayat, Barkha Rastogi, Ms. Chandni
Kumari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State
Ms. Archana Lakhotia and Mr. Ravinder
Parsad, Advocates for R-2
Crl. M.C. No.1486/2016 & ors. Page 1 of 5
+ CRL.M.C. 3159/2016 & Crl. M.A. 13530/2016
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Shekhar Pathak, Shailesh Pandey, Hemlata
Kharayat, Barkha Rastogi, Ms. Chandni
Kumari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State
Ms. Archana Lakhotia and Mr. Ravinder
Parsad, Advocates for R-2
+ CRL.M.C. 3160/2016 & Crl. M.A 13532/2016
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Shekhar Pathak, Shailesh Pandey, Hemlata
Kharayat, Barkha Rastogi, Ms. Chandni
Kumari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State
Ms. Archana Lakhotia and Mr. Ravinder
Parsad, Advocates for R-2
+ CRL.M.C. 1629/2016 & Crl.M.A. 6944/2016
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Crl. M.C. No.1486/2016 & ors. Page 2 of 5
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Shekhar Pathak, Shailesh Pandey, Hemlata
Kharayat, Barkha Rastogi, Ms. Chandni
Kumari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State
Ms. Archana Lakhotia and Mr. Ravinder
Parsad, Advocates for R-2
+ CRL.M.C. 1633/2016 & Crl.M.A. 6956/2016
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Shekhar Pathak, Shailesh Pandey, Hemlata
Kharayat, Barkha Rastogi, Ms. Chandni
Kumari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State
Ms. Archana Lakhotia and Mr. Ravinder
Parsad, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for offences
under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in
criminal complaint cases bearing nos.117/1, 118/1, 119/1, 120/1,
85/1 & 86/1 on the complaint of the second respondent in the court
of the Metropolitan Magistrate. He had moved an application under
Section 326 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) to
seek the trials to be conducted de novo on the ground that the
evidence recorded by the previous presiding officer could not be
availed of on account of he having been transferred, the procedure
applicable to such prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act attracting the summary trial in terms of Section
143. His prayer was, however, rejected by the orders which are
impugned by the petitions at hand.
2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having
gone through the records, this court finds the petitions to be wholly
frivolous. The learned Magistrate has noted in the impugned order,
inter alia, that the procedure followed for the trial of these cases is
not of summary trial that is generally applicable in terms of the main
provision contained in Section 143(1) but that of a summons trial in
as much as the process had commenced with notices under Section
251 Cr. PC being issued and served. Pertinent to note here that the
second proviso to Section 143(1) empowers the Magistrate to adopt
the summons trial procedure instead of the summary trial procedure.
The ruling of the Supreme Court reported as J.V. Baharuni & Anr.
Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2015 (1) JCC (N) 43; (2014) 10 SCC
494 guides that there is no strait-jacket formula for trial of the
offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act to be held, the law
relating thereto being flexible given the discretion to the prudent
judicial mind to try the case summarily or otherwise.
3. Since the procedure followed is of summons trial, the
restrictions in Section 326 Cr. PC do not get attracted. The plea is
misconceived.
4. The petitions and the applications filed therewith are
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 16, 2018
yg
