9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 dated 01.12.2016 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce for Rs. 3,50,000/-, given by the petitioners herein as refund of security amount. The said cheque was returned with endorsement "Payment stopped by drawer" vide return memo dated 10.01.2017. A legal notice dated 12.01.2017 was issued by the respondent and on failure of payment of the said amount, a complaint was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein before the learned Trial Court on 28.02.2017. b) The material on record shows that the complaint was listed for hearing on 18.04.2017 before the learned Trial Court but there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent herein and the matter was adjourned to 07.07.2017. On 07.07.2017 again due to non app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberate nor intentional. d) The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.11.2020 allowed the revision petition on payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- which was to be paid to the Delhi Legal Service Authority. The revision petition was allowed subject to the following conditions: "a) That the revisionist will be allowed to conclude pre-summoning evidence on one date given by Ld. Trial Court and the revisionist will not seek unnecessary adjournments, but subject to production of receipt of the cost imposed herein above, before Ld. Trial Court. b) That the revisionist will ensure that he will appear regularly before the Ld. MIV either in person or through his counsel." e) The learned Principal District & Sessions Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.07.2017, 11.01.2018 and 16.05.2018. He states that the complaint was dismissed on 16.05.2018 and the respondent herein was arrested on 11.02.2019 but there is no reason given by the respondent herein as to why the petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C was not filed between 16.05.2018 and 11.02.2019. He further states the respondent herein was released from judicial custody on 15.05.2020 but there is no reason forthcoming as to why the petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C was filed only on 18.09.2020. He therefore contends that out of 575 days' delay there is no explanation forthcoming from the respondent herein for a delay of 485 days. 5. The impugned order has, in great detail, recorded the facts of the case. The impugned order relies on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uire any statutory provision or conferment. A reading of Section 401(2) illuminates that power of revision should not be exercised without notice when an order prejudicial to the accused or other person is being passed. The order dismissing the complaint for default or non-prosecution does not touch upon the factual or legal merits of the complaint. The said order is a reflection on or about the conduct of the complainant in the proceedings before the court and the opinion formed by the court about the said conduct. Such orders if they do not reflect and take into consideration the merits of the case or the complaint will not require notice to the opposite side when examined in a revision petition. Such orders are not prejudicial to the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeds like a cheque was defeating the very purpose of recognizing the negotiable instruments as speedy vehicle of commerce. The objects and reasons for inserting Chapter XVII in the Negotiable Instruments Act was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making a drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts or for the reasons that it exceeds the arrangements made by the drawer with adequate safeguards to prevent the harassment of honest drawers. It is now well settled that even if the cheque gets dishonoured with endorsement "Payment stopped by drawer" and there were insufficient funds on the date when the cheque was presented it amounts to an offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent was apprehending arrest and was absconding. This has been found to be a good reason by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge to condone the delay of 575 days. When the respondent was released from jail on 15.05.2020, there was a lockdown and the revision petition was filed in September, 2020. The order of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge cannot be said to be so perverse that this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, should substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge. Costs have been imposed on the respondent herein and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge has directed the respondent to conclude the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
