9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Ors, convicting the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, "NI Act") and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and directing him to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent no.2 herein of an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- under Section 356(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The above complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 inter alia alleging that the respondent no.2 is a well-known and reputed distributor of various electronic gadgets, including sound systems, mobile phones and its accessories of various reputed companies and brands. It is also the distributor of the well-known and reputed brand "JBL". The accused no.1, that is, Prime Bizworld Private Ltd. is engaged in the business of trading of electronic items and other allied accessories, while the accused nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as directors of accused no.1, on the assertion that they are actively involved and responsible for day to day business of the accused no.1 company, which is being run as a family business. The petitioner herein was arrayed as accused no. 4 in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U BE TRIED BY THIS COURT FOR THE SAID OFFENCE. THE NOTICE IS READ OVER AND EXPLAINED TO THE ACCUSED WHO IS QUESTIONED AS UNDER: Q. DO YOU PLEAD GUILTY OR CLAIM TRIAL? ANS. I PLEAD GUILTY AND DO NOT CLAIM TRIAL." 6. On the same day, the learned MM proceeded to pass an order dated 12.10.2021, wherein it recorded that while the petitioner who was arrayed as accused no. 4 has pleaded guilty, the other accused persons namely Mr.Taranjeet Singh Kathuria and Smt. Harjeet Kathuria, who were impleaded as accused nos. 2 and 3, have pleaded not guilty and have claimed trial. The order further records that the counsel for the said accused made oral submission to drop the proceedings against the said accused on the ground that they had no knowledge about the present case and were sleeping partners of the accused no. 1 Company. Based on the said submission and recording the no objection of the learned counsel for the complainant, the proceedings were dropped against the said two accused. It is necessary to note here that the same counsel who was representing the petitioner herein was also representing the said two accused persons against whom the proceedings were dropped by the order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MM in the Order dated 12.10.2021, and in fact, by the same order, the other two accused had been discharged as though they had pleaded not guilty but also had stated that they had no role to play in dishonour of the cheque, to which the learned counsel for the complainant had agreed. 10. Aggrieved by the above Order dated 14.12.2021, the petitioner challenged the same by way of a Revision Petition, which has been dismissed by the learned ASJ by the Impugned Order, inter alia observing as under: "5. It is not in denial that the accused (revisionist herein) is educated one and counsel for the accused was also present before ld. Trial Court at the time of recording of plea of guilt of the accused. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no objection recorded from the accused side regarding his wrong recording of plea of guilt. It is further pertinent to mention here that order on sentence was pronounced on dated 14/12/2021. If the revisionist-accused was fully aware about the wrong submission being recorded during plead guilty, he would have moved some written application to the Court during the said period. It is only subsequent to the passing of the impugned order on sentenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... understand the Notice being framed against him, cannot be accepted. He submits that there was no protest against the order dated 12.10.2021 till 14.12.2021, when the Impugned Order of conviction and sentence was passed against the petitioner. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 16. As is noted hereinabove, the Notice was framed by the learned MM against the petitioner on 12.10.2021. The Notice is in clear language and is totally unambiguous. The petitioner pleaded guilty and claimed no trial in the same. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has pointed out that on the very same day, two other complaints filed by the respondent no. 2 were also listed, in which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He, therefore, rightly submitted that the petitioner fully understood the implication of him pleading guilty; and pleading of guilt was conscious act on part of the petitioner. The petitioner was also represented by a counsel who also did not protest once the plea of guilt was recorded and thereafter the Order was passed by the learned MM, wherein accused nos. 2 and 3 were in fact dropped from the proceedings. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
