Full Text
Translation output
15# HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 181/2010
ANIL DUTT SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate.
CRL.L.P. 181/2010
ANIL DUTT SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAKESH DODHI Respondent
Through: Mr. M.G. Vacher, Advocate.
Through: Mr. M.G. Vacher, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
05.04.2013 Crl.
M.A. No. 6774/2010 (condonation of delay)
Forthereasons stated intheapplication thedelay of 169 days infiling the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
05.04.2013 Crl.
M.A. No. 6774/2010 (condonation of delay)
Forthereasons stated intheapplication thedelay of 169 days infiling the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 181/2010
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave to appeal is granted.
Petition is disposed of.
Crl. Appeal No. kSS/2013 (to be numbered)
Registry to number theappeal.
By this appeal the Appellant seeks setting aside ofthe order dated 9 September, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the Complaint Case No. 03/04 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act for non-prosecution and thereby acquitting the Respondent.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave to appeal is granted.
Petition is disposed of.
Crl. Appeal No. kSS/2013 (to be numbered)
Registry to number theappeal.
By this appeal the Appellant seeks setting aside ofthe order dated 9 September, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the Complaint Case No. 03/04 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act for non-prosecution and thereby acquitting the Respondent.
CRL.L.P. 181/2010 1 of3
,th 2013:DHC:8336 Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution as the Appellant could not personally appear on two dates though he was diligently following the matter and on one date his counsel was present. The non-appearance ofthe Appellant on 29 May, 2009 was due to his illness which he informed to his counsel and thereafter the counsel wrongly noted the date of 9"" October, 2009 instead of 9^^
September, 2009.
Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Appellant had been absenting regularly and in view thereofthe learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. There being no error in the impugned order the same is not required tOrJ^e set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the order sheets show that the Appellant had been appearing on each date with his counsel till 18"^ March, 2009. On 29'^ May, 2009 the Appellant/Complainant was not present though his counsel was available. The file had been received on transfer to the Court on the said date. The learned Trial Court passed over the matter for thepresence ofthe
Appellant and thereafter put up for appearance of the Appellant/
Complainant and the Appellant evidence on 9"' September, 2009. On 9^''
September, 2009 none was present on behalf of the Appellant and thus the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. As per the order sheets, the
Appellant had been regularly appearing in the matter since 20"" January, 2004 on all dates. The explanation ofthe Appellant appears to be bona fide that he was not present on 29"^ May, 2009 as he was unwell and thereafter the date of 9"" September, 2009 was not noted as inadvertently 9"' October, CRL.L.P. 181/2010
2009 was noted by the learned counsel for the Appellant. This being the reason for the absence of the Appellant and his counsel on 9^^ September, 2009, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 9^'' September,
,th 2013:DHC:8336 Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution as the Appellant could not personally appear on two dates though he was diligently following the matter and on one date his counsel was present. The non-appearance ofthe Appellant on 29 May, 2009 was due to his illness which he informed to his counsel and thereafter the counsel wrongly noted the date of 9"" October, 2009 instead of 9^^
September, 2009.
Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Appellant had been absenting regularly and in view thereofthe learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. There being no error in the impugned order the same is not required tOrJ^e set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the order sheets show that the Appellant had been appearing on each date with his counsel till 18"^ March, 2009. On 29'^ May, 2009 the Appellant/Complainant was not present though his counsel was available. The file had been received on transfer to the Court on the said date. The learned Trial Court passed over the matter for thepresence ofthe
Appellant and thereafter put up for appearance of the Appellant/
Complainant and the Appellant evidence on 9"' September, 2009. On 9^''
September, 2009 none was present on behalf of the Appellant and thus the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. As per the order sheets, the
Appellant had been regularly appearing in the matter since 20"" January, 2004 on all dates. The explanation ofthe Appellant appears to be bona fide that he was not present on 29"^ May, 2009 as he was unwell and thereafter the date of 9"" September, 2009 was not noted as inadvertently 9"' October, CRL.L.P. 181/2010
2009 was noted by the learned counsel for the Appellant. This being the reason for the absence of the Appellant and his counsel on 9^^ September, 2009, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 9^'' September,
ORDER
2009. The Complaint Case No. 03/04 titled as Anil Dutt Sharma vs. Rakesh Dhodhi is restored to its original position subject tothe Appellant paying Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent before the learned Trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 29"^ April, 2013. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
MUKTA GUPTA, J. APRIL 05, 2013/'vn' CRL.L.P. 181/2010 Page 3 of[3]