Full Text
Translation output
$42 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2157/2011
VASU TECH LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv.
CRL.M.C. 2157/2011
VASU TECH LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv.
VERSUS
J K VARMA Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv. for R-1.
Through Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
14.07.2011 CrI.MA. No.7830/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 2157/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.7829/2011 Notice.
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 accepts notice.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and were directed to pay compensation of 50 lakhs to Respondent No.1 within one month from 25th April, 2011.
14.07.2011 CrI.MA. No.7830/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 2157/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.7829/2011 Notice.
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 accepts notice.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and were directed to pay compensation of 50 lakhs to Respondent No.1 within one month from 25th April, 2011.
CRL.MC. 2157/2011 Page] of 3
2011:DHC:15413 By way of the present petition, the Petitioners do not challenge the order of conviction or the order on sentence but only seek extension of time for making payment of compensation.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that at the time when order on sentence was pronounced the Petitioners were in custody in another matter and thus, could not pay the compensation to Respondent No.1 within one month. They moved an application before the Trial Court for extension of time. However, the same was dismissed as the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate did not have the power to modify its
2011:DHC:15413 By way of the present petition, the Petitioners do not challenge the order of conviction or the order on sentence but only seek extension of time for making payment of compensation.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that at the time when order on sentence was pronounced the Petitioners were in custody in another matter and thus, could not pay the compensation to Respondent No.1 within one month. They moved an application before the Trial Court for extension of time. However, the same was dismissed as the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate did not have the power to modify its
ORDER
.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that he has no objection if the time is extended for payment of compensation. He states that T 10 lakhs have already been paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No.1.
The Petitioners have further agreed to pay TIO lakhs on or before 18th July, 2011 and the remaining amount of T30 lakhs will be paid on or before 6th August, 2011. Learned counsel for the Petitioners confirms the same and states that the payment would be made as agreed between the parties.
In view of the fact that the Petitioners are willing to pay the balance amount of compensation and only seeking extension of time for this purpose, the order on sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan
CRL.MC. 2157/20]] Page2of3 Magistrate is modified to the extent that the fine of T50 lakhs to be paid as compensation to the complainant will be paid by the Petitioners on or before
6th August, 2011 in installments as undertaken above. Till then, the non- bailable warrants issued against the Petitioners are kept in abeyance.
The petition and application are disposed of accordingly.
Aulta +t4P- MUKTA GUPTA,J JULY 149 2011 vkrn 2011 Page3of3
Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that he has no objection if the time is extended for payment of compensation. He states that T 10 lakhs have already been paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No.1.
The Petitioners have further agreed to pay TIO lakhs on or before 18th July, 2011 and the remaining amount of T30 lakhs will be paid on or before 6th August, 2011. Learned counsel for the Petitioners confirms the same and states that the payment would be made as agreed between the parties.
In view of the fact that the Petitioners are willing to pay the balance amount of compensation and only seeking extension of time for this purpose, the order on sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan
CRL.MC. 2157/20]] Page2of3 Magistrate is modified to the extent that the fine of T50 lakhs to be paid as compensation to the complainant will be paid by the Petitioners on or before
6th August, 2011 in installments as undertaken above. Till then, the non- bailable warrants issued against the Petitioners are kept in abeyance.
The petition and application are disposed of accordingly.
Aulta +t4P- MUKTA GUPTA,J JULY 149 2011 vkrn 2011 Page3of3