Crl. M.C. No. 5145/2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 17582/2014. Case: Revolution Clothings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs ICICI Bank. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Crl. M.C. No. 5145/2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 17582/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Puneet Bajaj and Amit Bajaj, Advs. and For Respondents: Punit K. Bhalla and Chetna Bhalla, Advs. |
| Judges | Manmohan Singh, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 251, 397, 397(3), 399, 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | January 30, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Manmohan Singh, J.
-
Due to dishonour of cheque, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was taken up by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter, the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioners on 16th January, 2010. The evidence was led by the respondent/complainant and examined PW- 1 Mr.Abhishek Aggarwal who was partially cross-examined on 17th April, 2010 and 22nd May, 2010. Thereafter, the said Court was presided over by another Metropolitan Magistrate and the remaining cross-examination of PW-1 was conducted before the new Court.
-
The petitioners thereafter filed an application for de novo proceedings on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Anr. vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & Anr, AIR 2011 SC 3076 mainly, on the reason that since the entire evidence had not been led before the same Court and some part of the evidence was recorded by the new Metropolitan Magistrate Court, therefore, the de novo proceedings be carried out. The application was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by order dated 22nd May, 2012. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing of the revision petition under Sections 397/399 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the said revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-05, Dwarka Courts, Delhi by order dated 23rd August, 2014. By relying upon the decision given by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Manju M. Aggarwal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 13161 of 2013, decided on 26th March, 2014, the following reasons were given by the Revisional Court:-
"This judgment is squarely application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of this judgement, plea of petitioners cannot be accepted and specific reason is not required to be given if the Court decides to try the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act as a summary trial at the stage of giving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the fact that notice was given to petitioner by the Ld. Trial Court under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and evidence in the matter is being recorded in complete manner and not only substance of evidence, I affirm the finding of Ld. Trial Court."
-
Both the above said orders dated 22nd May, 2012 and 23rd August, 2014 have been challenged by the petitioners...
To continue reading
Request your trial