KODAK INDIA PVT. LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is delay of 298 days in filing of this revision petition. Petitioner was the Complainant/first informant in FIR No. 143/95 under Section 406, 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi. Authorised representative of the Petitioner company has filed an affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay.

(2.) PETITIONER claims that the impugned order of discharge of the Respondent has been passed at the back of the Petitioner. There is a detailed affidavit of the authorized representative of the Petitioner stating that Petitioner had learnt about the passing of the impugned order on 28th November 2005 during the court hearing at Jaipur in a case between the present parties and earlier counsel of the Petitioner could not be contacted as he had left the office to join some other office and few months time consumed in this process. According to the Petitioner, a new counsel was engaged, who took time in obtaining the certified copy of the relevant papers of this case and on or about 3rd March 2006, grandfather of the counsel for the Petitioner fell ill and counsel for the Petitioner remained busy in taking care of his ailing grandfather and on his return, the present petition was filed. It is stated that the delay is unintentional and was beyond control and the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if this matter is not heard on merits.

(3.) A bare perusal of the trial court record reveals that the Petitioner/Complainant was duly represented by counsel on the date previous to the passing of the impugned order and in order sheet dated 21st March 2006 of the trial court, presence of Sh. Ashwani Vaish, advocate for the Petitioner is recorded and it is a matter of record that he had argued on the application on that day and thereafter, this case was adjourned to 9th May 2005, when the impugned order was passed. It is true that on the day of passing of impugned order, counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant was not present. In any case, it is not the duty of the counsel to inform the client about the next date of hearing. It is vice versa. A party has to find out the next date of hearing from the counsel.