APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL Vs. PRAVIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 7th November, 2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint of the appellant and thereby acquitted the accused. It is stated by appellant that the complaint was fixed on 20th May, 2003 when appellant gave its evidence by way of affidavit and the cognizance was taken by the Court of Learned MM and summons were issued to the accused on 12th May, 2004 On 12th May, 2004, accused was not served. Fresh summons were ordered to be issued on 27th July, 2004 On 27th July, 2004, report was awaited and the trial court directed issuance of summons for 23rd July, 2005. In the mean time Authorized representative of the appellant left the appellant's company so the appellant made an application for substitution of the Authorized Representative which was adjourned to 8th February 2006. On 8th February 2006, the trial court issued bailable warrants of the accused and the matter was adjourned to 7th November, 2006. On 7th November, 2006, the matter was fixed before trial court awaiting the report of the warrants issue of the accused. Unfortunately, the matter was posted by counsel for the appellant and the appellant for 27th November, 2006 instead of 7th November, 2006 under bona fide mistake. On 27th November, 2006, the counsel for the appellant went to the trial court and learnt that the matter was dismissed in default on 7th November;, 2006. In support of its contentions, the counsel for appellant has placed on record the page of diary dated 27th November, 2006, where entry of this case is shown.

(2.) It would be seen that wrong noting of dates is taken as a very common excuse. Entry in the diary of the counsel for the appellant can be made at any stage. In the instant case also, the page of diary dated 27th November, 2006 has been placed on record and the pages of dates 8th February, 2006 or 7th November, 2006, which were more relevant pages have not been placed on record. These pages would have shown if on 8th February, 2006 was wrongly noted and if there was no entry made in for the date of 7th November, 2006.

(3.) I consider that these kinds of excuses taken by manipulating the diary should not be considered a valid reason for non appearance. It is not a bona fide mistake but it seems that it is an intentional maneuvering of the professional diary.