S.N. DHINGRA Vs. STATE, NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 521 of 2003 decided on 24-7-2003. The appellant prays that certain objectionable and derogatory remarks made against him by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the impugned Judgment be expunged. The remarks which are sought to be expunged are as follows:-

(2.) Separate complaints were filed in regard to the dishonouring of each cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording of preliminary evidence brought on record by the complainant and hearing arguments, prima facie found that an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was deemed to have been committed. He took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused for 8-4-2002. It appears that in obedience to the general order issued by the Delhi High Court, all cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Magistrates' Courts were transferred to the Court of Sessions. In these circumstances, this particular case came to be allotted to the Court of the appellant. The accused along with his counsel appeared before the appellant. They were directed to furnish bail bonds and surety which were duly furnished. Copies of the complaints and all documents and pre-summoning evidence were also furnished to the accused. Thereafter the case was fixed for consideration of notice under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure Code on 14-8-2002. Notice under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure Code was served on the accused on 14-8-2002 who pleaded No. 1 guilty and the case was fixed on 10-10-2002 for complainant's evidence. Since there were three complaints, they were all clubbed together by the Order dated 10-10-2002. Evidence was ordered to be recorded in one case i.e., Case No. 308 of 2002. The other two cases bearing Case Nos. 226 of 2002 and 227 of 2002 were tagged to the Case No. 308 of 2002. The case was adjourned for complainant's evidence. The statement of complainant was recorded on 11-3-2003. The complainant in his evidence claimed that the cheques were dishonoured. Notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had been duly served on the accused. The complainant was cross-examined. After the evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined who pleaded that he had no liability and the cheques were forcibly obtained from him. He also pleaded that he made a complaint to the Police in this regard. The accused also sought permission to lead evidence by way of defence. Therefore, the Judge adjourned the case for 1-5-2003 for defence evidence. On 1-5-2003, the accused failed to produce any evidence. Keeping in view that the dishonoured cheques were for an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs and that the adjournment was sought to summon witnesses and records, the Judge granted the adjournment but made it subject to payment of Rs. 15000/- as costs. The case was fixed for defence evidence on 27-5-2003. On that day, the accused filed certified copies of certain documents and made an application to recall the complainant for further cross-examination. Costs of Rs. 15000/- which had been imposed on 1-5-2003 were partly paid. The case was adjourned to 26-7-2003 and the witnesses were allowed to be summoned for the date fixed. The application for recalling the witnesses was heard on 26-7-2003 and it was allowed by order dated 31-7-2003. However, further cross-examination of the complainant was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 500/- and the case was again adjourned to 9-9-2003 for further cross-examination of the complainant.

(3.) In the meantime, the accused filed a revision petition in the High Court against the Order dated 1-5-2003. The revision petition was allowed by the High Court by the impugned Order dated 24-7-2003. The Orders dated 11-3-2003 and 1-5-2003 were set aside.