9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') was filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner alleging dishonor of the cheques bearing no. 886175, 886176 and 886177, all dated 15.07.2019 for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs each, which had got dishonoured vide bank returning memos dated 11.10.2019 with remarks "Insufficient Funds". The complainant in the same complaint had also alleged the dishonor of cheque bearing no. 886178 dated 15.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.6 lacs which was dishonoured vide return memo dated 23.10.2019 with remarks "Insufficient Funds". After dishonour of the said cheques, respondent/complainant had sent a common legal notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Sessions Court has failed to pass any order in respect of the prayer of the petitioner pertaining to Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and had only passed the impugned order on the aspect of cross-examination which was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant. It is now argued that the cost imposed vide the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 has been paid by the petitioner, however, since no speaking order with respect to all the prayers was passed by the learned Sessions Court, on that ground alone, the impugned order should be set aside. It is further argued that the learned Sessions Court has committed an error in not passing any order with respect to the inherent defect in the complaint of the respondent, and the Courts bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner subject to payment of which he was allowed to cross-examine the complainant was justified in the facts of the case. It is also stated that after the impugned order was passed, though the petitioner had paid the cost to the complainant, he had again sought an adjournment before the learned Trial Court and thus, his right to cross-examine the complainant had again been closed and the matter had been listed for recording the statement of accused. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has not been appearing before the learned Trial Court and even Non-Bailable Warrants against him. Thus, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "Adjournment is sought by Id. Counsel for the accused on the ground that she wishes to challenge order dated 16.04.2022 passed by this Court. Perusal of the file shows that on the last date of hearing, one last and final opportunity was granted to both the sides for the purpose of cross examination of CWI. Today, CWI is present, but adjournment is again sought on behalf of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that she wishes to challenge order dated 16.04.2022 passed by this Court. Pertinently, till date, the accused has not challenged the said order. A perusal of the file also shows that time and again adjournments have been sought by the accused for the purpose of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... costs and to convenience of the court. It is made clear that in case on the adjourned date, petitioner or his counsel is not available or costs are not paid, opportunity shall be deemed to have been declined and impugned order shall be restored. 7. For the reasons noticed above, Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by MM-01, NI Act, South, Saket, New Delhi, is set-aside. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 01.05.2023. 8. Revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court and a copy be given dasti to both parties. Revision file be consigned to record room." 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has already paid the cost imposed by the learned Trial Court for the purpose of conducting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of bar under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. was raised before the learned Trial Court on 20.03.2023, it was only in respect of seeking adjournment for the purpose of challenging the order dated 16.04.2022 vide which such application under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. had been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. However, as clear from the bare perusal of the records, the order dated 20.03.2023, which was impugned before the learned Sessions Court, did not record any observations on the maintainability of the complaint under Section 219 of Cr.P.C., rather only pertained to the right of accused to cross-examine the complainant. 14. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/accused has till date not challenged the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
