M/S Jvalin Exports Pvt Ltd v. Asmsh Juneja

1. Having perused the order sheet of learned Trial Court this Court deems itfitto grantleave to appeal.

2. Petition is disposed of. Crl.A.No.9^I /2018(to he numbered)

1. Registryis directedto numberthe appeal.

2. Admit.

3. Heardlearned counselfortheparties.Thepetitionerfded acomplaint against the respondent under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour offour cheques, three for ?2,50,000/- and fourth for ?2,90,000/- with the return memos dated 27"" November, 2012, 27 November, 2012, 19"^ November, 2012 and 13"' December, 2012 respectively. Despite legal notice no payment was made. Hence the complaint. CRL.L.P.55H/2016 2018:DHC:9375 H

4. The complaint came up before the learned Trial Court for the first time on 3V^ January,2013 when the Presiding Officer was on leave and the complainant was present with the counsel. Complaint was adjourned to 3C' January, 2013 when pre-summoning evidence was led and summons wee issued to the respondent. Since 3'^'' April, 2013 despite efforts to trace and serve the respondent including by filing fresh address even on service through affixation respondent failed to appear,bailable warrants were issued which also could not be served on the respondent/accused. Finally on 2"^^ January,2014the Trial Courtissued non-bailable warrants which were again issued on 28^*^ February, 2014 when the respondent/accused entered th • appearance and sought cancellation of non-bailable warrants on 5 April,

2014. The complainant was diligently pursuing the complaint and on each date authorised representative of the complainant along with the learned counsel or the learned counsel for the complainant were present. Finally on 28'^ July, 2016 Umendra Kumar Chaturvedi was present on behalf ofthe complainant when the matter was listed on an application moved by the respondentfor waiving the costimposed.On 28^^ July,2016 the complaint was adjourned to 30^*^ August, 2016. The case of the petitioner is that Umendra Kumar Chaturvedi informed the learned counsel that the matter had been adjourned to 2nd September, 2016 and when learned counsel reached the Courton 2"^^ September,2016 it was revealed thatthe matter on beinglisted on 30^''August,2016 wastaken up and duetothe absence ofthe complainantor hiscounsel,the complaintwas dismissed andtherespondent was acquitted. CRL.L.P.558/2016 ^

5. As noted above from the perusal ofthe order sheet it is evident that the petitioner/complainant was pursuing the complaint diligently and on every date the Authorised Representative ofthe complainant or the counsel ofthe complainant or both were present and one date on which they could not be present i.e. 30^^ August, 2016 was for the reason that the date was wrongly noted.

6. Considering the record ofthe Trial Courtthis Court deems it fit to set tV» n • aside the impugned judgement dated 30 August, 2016 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent.

7. Complaintis restored to its original position.

8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 22"^ September,2018.

9. Appealis disposed of.

10. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA,J. SEPTEMBER 05,2018 'yo'