Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2390/2016
VIJAY KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Padam Jain, Mr. Vinay Kurnar Bhasin, Advs.
Represented by:
Respondent Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Padam Jain, Mr. Vinay Kumar Bhasin, Advs.
Page 1 of4 2016:DHC:9044 ( Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.
Crl.M.C. 2390/2016 Crl.M.C. 2391/2016 Crl.M.C. 2392/2016
Crl.M.C. 2393/2016 Crl.M.C. 2394/2016
JUDGMENT
1. By the common impugned order dated ll'^'^ December, 2015 the learned ASJ dismissed the 5 revision petitions preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 14^*^ July, 2014 passed,by the learned Metropolitan CRL.M.C. 2390/2016 & conn, matters Page 2 of[4]
VERSUS
VERSUS
BALVINDER KUMAR Respondent CORAM; HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER % 11.07.2016 Crl.M.A. 10195/2016 in Crl.M.C. 2390/2016 Crl.M.A. 10197/2016 in Crl.M.C. 2391/2016 Crl.M.A. 10199/2016 in Crl.M.C. 2392/2016 Crl.M.A. 10201/2016 in Crl.M.C. 2393/2016 Crl.M.A. 10203/2016 in Crl.M.C. 2394/2016 Magistrate dismissing the application ofthe petitioner under Section 145 (2) Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the NT Act), the orders dated 16^^ September, 2014 dismissing the applications of the petitioner filed under 145 (2) NT Act and the applications for waiver of cost, i
2. In the 5 complaints filed against the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act whenthe proceedings reached the stage for recording of the statement of petitioner on 11* December, 2015 revision petitions were filed along with applicationsfor stay and condonation ofdelay.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugnedorder noted that complaint case under Section 138 NI Act is a summary trial procedure governed by the procedure of NI Act itself and notice was framed against the petitioner on 23'^'^ October, 2013. He was directed to file the application under Section 145 (2) NI Act on 25* October, 2013,, however he did not avail the said opportunity. Even the last opportunity which was subject to cost of ?5,000/- was not availed. When the proceedings were fixed for recording of the statement of the petitioners, revision petitions were filed. No sufficient cause was shown seeking condonation ofdelay.
4. Even before this Court all that learned counsel says is that he was not in a position to pay the cost of ^5,000/- imposed on him. The petitioner has already moved an application for waiver of the cost and it was all the more reason he should have moved the said application along with the revision petition in jtime.
5. Having perused the paper book and the application I find no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. There being no illegality in the impugned order the present petitions are dismissed. CRL.M.C. 2390/2016 & conn, matters Page 3 of[4] Crl.M.A. 10194/2016 Tstav) in Crl.M.C. 2390/2016 Crl.M.A. 10196/2016 Tstav) in Crl.M.C. 2391/2016 Crl.M.A. 10198/2016 Tstav) in Crl.M.C Crl.M.A. 10200/2016 (stay) in Crl.M.C 2392/2016 2393/2016 Crl.M.A. 10202/2016 Tstav) in Crl.M.C. 2394/2016 Dismissed as infructuous.