9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner for condonation of delay - As already observed the order of issuance of process is dated 23.10.2017 and the petitioner has received the summons on 17.02.2018. Belated attempt of the Petitioner to invoke Revisional jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Petition - Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2019 - S.S. SHINDE J. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi I/by. Anuj Jhaveri, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Hrishikesh Chawan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent No. 2 State. PER COURT : (JUDGMENT) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties petition is being heard finally. 2. This Petition takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 21st January 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court at Bombay in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1570 of 2018 in Criminal Revision Application, thereby rejecting the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application. 3. It is the case of the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner that, after entering into the MOU, Petitioner vide their Advocates letter dated 19th August 2016 replied to the notice dated 25th July 2016 issued by the Complainant requesting to withdraw the notice. In pursuance of the agreement terms contained the MOU, the said Company issued various cheques towards dues and payments of the Respondent No. 1. Again, when the Respondent No. 1 presented the cheques for payment those were dishonored. On 23.10.2017 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide order below Exh. 1 in C.C. No. 2305627/SS/2016 issued process against the petitioner and other Directors of the said company. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide order below Exh. 1 Petitioner approached the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay by filing a Misc. Application No. 1570 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing Criminal Revision Appeal. 6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay by order dated 21st January, 2019 rejected the Misc. Application No. 1570 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner on the ground that, Petitioner is reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of issuance of cheque. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to consider that the Complainant themselves has mentioned in last 2 lines of Para 2 of the Complaint that the Accused No. 6 8 are also responsible for the day of day activities and business affairs of the Accused No. 1 even after the aforesaid the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner at the time when the said cheque was dishonoured, was not a Additional Director in the said Company and thus the present Petitioner was not incharge of the day to day affairs of the said Company, therefore, no cause of action would reflect on him. On this ground also, the said order of issuance of process be set aside. It is submitted that, reading the averments in the complaint in their entirety without adding or subtracting anything there from, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for Short NI Act) is made out as against the Petitioner. 9. It is submitted that, there is not a single averment or a statement to show that the Petitioner was in-charge of the day-to-day conduct and business affairs of the said Company. The Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or has been accepted or admitted by the complainant. Upon production of the certified cop of the form No. 32, the accused will have to prove the truthfulness of the contents of the certified copy and the factum of his resignation, during the trial before the Trial Court. Therefore, learned counsel prays that petition may be rejected. 11. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent i.e. Original Complainant. With their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto and also the order passed by the Sessions Court as well as the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing the process. In the present Petition an exception is taken to the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Sessions Court thereby rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Revision application. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court, it appears that, the Sessions Court has not appreciated the contentions on merits and rejected the application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay. It appears that, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary for reasons to be recorded in writing. (3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. 12. The aforesaid provision would make it abundantly clear that the legislature intented to expedite the trial of the cases arising out of dishonor of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account, and conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. In the present case the Petitioner belatedly filed the Revision after six months from the date of issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As already observed, there was no sufficient cause disclosed before the Sessions Court to condone the delay and therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the Application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay. As already observed the order of issuance of process is dated 23.10.2017 and the petitioner has received the summons on 17.02.2018. Belated attempt of the Petitioner to invoke Revisional jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. learned counsel for 1st respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
