Full Text
$-12
* IN THE HIQH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 294/2016, VIJAY SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Gupta, Adv.
^ Through: Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Singh and Mr. Vijay
Kahsa, Advs'.
% 25.11.2016
Crl. L.P. 294/2016 ^
Leave toappeal granted. Registry to.register this petition as an appeal.
Crl.A./l 57/2016 (To be numberedV
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Appellant has assailed the order dated 22"^ February, 2016 passed by the trial court whereby his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) has been dismissed in default and respondent hasbeeii acquitted..
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had appeared
• ' • , ' • in Court on 3'^^ February, 2016 and had noted the next date ofhearing as 8^*"
March, 2016 instead of 8^'' February, 2016, accordingly, complainant had remained unrepresented on 8^^, 9* and 22'^'^ February, 2016. It is submitted
2016:DHC:8523 that even respondent had remained unrepresented on 8^^ and 9^^ Febmary,
ORDER
2016. Appellant had been diligently pursuing his matter and had even led evidence. Respondent did not lead evidence despite several opportunities granted to him, consequently, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 20^*" January, 2016 and matter was adjourned to 3"^ February, 2016 for final arguments. At that stage, respondent had filed an application for leading defence evidence which,was pending consideration when the matter was dismissed in default on 22"^^ February, 2016. Appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 ofthe Act. Notice under Section 138 ofthe Act was framed on 7^^ March, 2012. Thereafter, appellant led evidence and examined himself as CWl. He was also cross-examined. Statement of respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10^*^ March, 2013. The proceeding sheets placed on record makes it clear that appellant had been diligently pursing the matter and had been appearing before the trial court on the dates ofhearing. On 3''' February, 2016 the next date ofhearing was given as 8^ February, 2016. It is only thereafter complainant did not appear till 22"^February, 2016 when the complaint was ultimately dismissed in default and respondent was acquitted on account ofnon appearance ofthe appellant and his counsel. The plea of the appellant that he wrongly noted X the next date ofhearing as 8^ March, 2016 instead of8^ February, 2016 is a probable and plausible plea, there is no justificationto reject this plea taken by the appellant keeping in mind the fact that he had been diligently pursing the matter and appearing beforethe trial court. 'For the foregoing reasons, impugned order is set aside and complaint is resorted at its original number. Parties to appear before the concerned trial courton,12'^ December, 2016. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
NOVEMBER 25,2016 ga; A.K. AK, J.