Allowed

M/S Vinod Textiles v. M/S Br Wollen Mills

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Apr 2013CRM-M/11548/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused in a cheque bouncing case to grant one more opportunity to conclude defence evidence on payment of costs, with court assistance for summoning witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial Magistrate to grant one more effective opportunity to petitioners for defence evidence on payment of Rs.10,000/- costs.

M/S Vinod Textiles Vs M/S Br Wollen Mills — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-11548 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-11548 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision : April 12, 2013

¶6

M/s Vinod Textiles and another .... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶13

Petitioners are accused in criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Their defence evidence has been closed by trial court vide order dated 12.03.2013 Annexure P-1. Then the petitioners moved application Annexure P-2 for summoning witnesses by depositing process fee and diet money. The said application has been dismissed by trial Magistrate vide order dated 16.03.2013 (Annexure P-3) because the defence evidence already stood closed vide order Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short

¶14

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. M-11548 of 2013

¶16

– Cr.P.C.) assailing orders Annexures P-1 and P-3.

¶17

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case

¶18

file.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to produce their remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs, but assistance of the Court may be provided to summon the bank officials as witnesses.

¶20

I have carefully considered the matter.

¶21

It appears from the zimni orders of the trial court, as mentioned in the instant petition, that the petitioners were granted as many as seven effective opportunities for their evidence, but they failed to conclude their evidence. Although the trial Magistrate was justified in closing the defence evidence of the petitioners by court order after granting eight effective opportunities, yet in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the petitioners, subject to payment of costs, to compensate the respondent-complainant for the consequent delay in disposal of the case. Counsel for the petitioners stated that the total amount of three cheques in question is Rs.3,03,146/-.

¶22

I intend to dispose of the instant petition without issuing notice to the respondent-complainant so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the criminal complaint and also to save the respondent of the expenses it may

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-11548 of 2013

¶24

¶25

have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant petition, if notice thereof is issued to it.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and trial Magistrate is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the petitioners for their remaining defence evidence, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs precedent. The petitioners may be given assistance by the Court for summoning their witnesses but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to them for their remaining defence evidence.

¶27

April 12, 2013

¶28

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶29

monika

M/S Vinod Textiles v. M/S Br Wollen Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vinod Textiles v. M/S Br Wollen Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita and Anr. Vs Royal Orchid Company Rajpura and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs Royal Orchid Company, Rajpura and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.

Vinod Kumar @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab

M/S Rkt Woolen Mills Vs M/S Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills

Surinder Singh @ Billa & Anr. Vs State of Punjab