Baldev Raj v. Texmaco Ltd & Anr

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy.

2. Subject to the deficiency being rectified within four weeks from today, the application is allowed. Crl. M. C. No. 2434/2011

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North Delhi. This order was assailed because the petitioner was not permitted to call his defence witnesses and was not given more than one opportunity to lead his evidence by the trial court.:·:: ~ -~ '' r,; r-:: !, \):' '-- I ~ i',) li fi: 2011:DHC:10840 2---

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act for vacation of tbe quarter that was purported to have been allotted to the present petitioner by the M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. the assets of which are allegedly transferred to the respondent/complainant. During the course of examination of the defence witnesses by the present petitioner/accused, he filed an application for summoning five ·~-/ witnesses. The said application was dismissed by the learned ACMM vide order dated 28.02.2011, as he held that the witnesses which were sought to be examined by the present petitioner/accused were not at all relevant for the purpose of establishing the defence of the present petitioner.

3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order, preferred a revision petition bearing no. 24/2011 which came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 05.04.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 did not find any infirmity, irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned ACMM and hence, it rejected the prayer of the petitioner for summoning five witnesses in his defence. However, extra indulgence was shown by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by giving the petitioner I ~([ ! one opportunity, on the request of his counsel, for enabling th~ petitioner to examine himself in his own defence. The petitioner was satisfied by the said order that was passed by Ms.Madhu Jain, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ol(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and so he has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by directing the petitioner to examine himself as a witness in his defence, he is being subjected to the violation of his rights under ~..._ Section 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

5. The second submission that was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an order which was passed by this Court in Crl. M. C. No. 3324/2011 wherein the High Court permitted the examination of two witnesses of the petitioner in the said case.

6. However, in spite of the fact that no advance copy was served on the respondent, the learned counsel for the respondent still appeared as he incidentally saw the matter in the list. He has opposed the application on the ground that he is indulging in dilatory tactics.

7. I have gone through the record.

8. I find that the present petition is a gross abuse of processes of ~-; ~: I. i. 1, 9.,~-:~-~;. 10.. ~ law because the present petition has been filed by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it is almost like a second revision petition, which is prohibited by Section 397(3). Even if it is considered not to be a second revision, still no fault can be found with the order. Only one opportunity was given by Additional Sessions Judge to adduce the evidence by examining himself as a defence witness. The order which has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be violative under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India because this opportunity was given to the petitioner on the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner himself that he would like to examine himself as a defence witnesses. This is permissible under Section 315 Cr.P.C. I do not find that the present petition has any merit and deserves to entertained. The petition is actuated only with a view to perpetuate the possession of the petitioner and to refrain the trial Court from proceeding expeditiously in the matter. The petition has no merit, accordingly, the same is dismissed. JULY 29, 2011 KP ~ r· V.K. SHALI,J i·· ~