Full Text
Translation output
I
$-20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 118/2012
JINNIINFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Laliet Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Amit, Advocate.
$-20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 118/2012
JINNIINFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Laliet Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Amit, Advocate.
VERSUS
VISHAL GOEL & ANR Respondents
Through : Mr.M.K.Gautam, Advocate with Mr.Ritesh Tanwar, Advocate.
Through : Mr.M.K.Gautam, Advocate with Mr.Ritesh Tanwar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
30.01.2013
30.01.2013
CRL.M.A.2508/2012 (delay) !
Counsel for the respondents has nojobjection for condonation ofdelay
1 i in filing the petition.; :
For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing the petitionis condoned.
The application for condonation ofdelay is disposed of
Counsel for the respondents has nojobjection for condonation ofdelay
1 i in filing the petition.; :
For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing the petitionis condoned.
The application for condonation ofdelay is disposed of
CRL.L.P. 118/2012
Heard.
The petitioner is permitted to appeal against the order ofthe acquittal.
CrlL.P.118/2012 is allowed.
2013:DHC:8352 CRL.A. /2013 (to be numbered)
During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents has not objected if the impugned order/
Heard.
The petitioner is permitted to appeal against the order ofthe acquittal.
CrlL.P.118/2012 is allowed.
2013:DHC:8352 CRL.A. /2013 (to be numbered)
During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents has not objected if the impugned order/
ORDER
is set aside and the matter is decided bytheTrial Court onmerits.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
Perusal ofthe file reveals that complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner on 16.02.2008 against the respondents. The respondents were summoned vide order dated 31.05.2008.
The petitioner pursued the case on subsequent dates regularly. On
23.08.2011, the complainant was not present. The case was adjourned for complainant's evidence for 17.10.2011. On 17.10.2011, the complainant was represented and the case was adjourned for 16.11.2011 to be put up with connected case. On 16.11.2011, none appeared on behalf of the complainant/petitioner and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and in default.
Perusal of the order-sheet reveals that there was no negligence in appearance on behalf of the petitioner since 2008 to 2011. Only on
16.11.2011 when the complainant could not put appearance, the complaint
^ case was dismissed for non prosecution. It is stated that on 17.10.2011 when the case was adjourned, the date was wrongly noted as 16.01.2012 instead of
16.11.2011 by the complainant as well as the accused. None was present for that reason on behalf ofthe respondent on 16.11.2011. The counsel for the respondent has not disputed this fact.
In the interest ofjustice and to enable the parties to get their case decided on merits, the appeal against acquittal is allowed and the complaint case dismissed in default and for non prosecution is restored in its original t number.
The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 6^'' March, 2013.
Theappeal stands disposed of intheabove terms. i s#:garg,j
JANUARY 30,2013/tr
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
Perusal ofthe file reveals that complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner on 16.02.2008 against the respondents. The respondents were summoned vide order dated 31.05.2008.
The petitioner pursued the case on subsequent dates regularly. On
23.08.2011, the complainant was not present. The case was adjourned for complainant's evidence for 17.10.2011. On 17.10.2011, the complainant was represented and the case was adjourned for 16.11.2011 to be put up with connected case. On 16.11.2011, none appeared on behalf of the complainant/petitioner and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and in default.
Perusal of the order-sheet reveals that there was no negligence in appearance on behalf of the petitioner since 2008 to 2011. Only on
16.11.2011 when the complainant could not put appearance, the complaint
^ case was dismissed for non prosecution. It is stated that on 17.10.2011 when the case was adjourned, the date was wrongly noted as 16.01.2012 instead of
16.11.2011 by the complainant as well as the accused. None was present for that reason on behalf ofthe respondent on 16.11.2011. The counsel for the respondent has not disputed this fact.
In the interest ofjustice and to enable the parties to get their case decided on merits, the appeal against acquittal is allowed and the complaint case dismissed in default and for non prosecution is restored in its original t number.
The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 6^'' March, 2013.
Theappeal stands disposed of intheabove terms. i s#:garg,j
JANUARY 30,2013/tr