25.04.2012
Accused has also deposited the cost of Rs.3,000/- in each case with DLSA. Receipt taken on record.
At request of the parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell today itself after lunch.
Be awaited.
Complaint dismissed.
Accused in person.
Be awaited.
Cross-examination deferred as it is lunch time and ld. counsel for the accused is not after lunch.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he has to go to the hospital.
C.C.No.5970/1
25.04.2012
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that complainant does not want to proceed with the
present case.
Be awaited.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused No.3 on the ground that accused is not
in Delhi.
the complainant.
Accused submits that he is willing and ready to pay the amount to the complainant.
List the matter for Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
BW for the last date has been received with a report Kuchh pata nahi chal saka.
Fresh NBW has also been received with a report already left the address.
It appears that complainant is not appearing for the last several dates.
Complaint is dismissed as the complainant is not appearing for the last several dates.
There is no report in respect of compliance of the last order. However, complainant submits that
matter has been settled with the accused.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded in this respect.
Matter be put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is, however, seeking time on the ground that he is not well.
Adjourned to 02.05.2012.
At specific request of ld. counsel for the accused, date is changed to 09.05.2012.
Accused has filed fresh bail bond and surety bond. Accepted.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant seeks an adjournment on the ground that he has to receive relevant
documents from Bhopal.
Adjourned to 05.06.2012.
Pre-summoning affidavit of the complainant can be read in evidence whenever the accused is
apprehended. Therefore, there is no necessity to proceed with the case U/s 299 Cr.P.C.
SHO is directed to register an FIR against the accused U/s 174A IPC.
SI Prem Pal is present and has filed the affidavit as required in terms of order dated 02.05.2012.
Before lunch time, one witness from the Punjab National Bank was available and had filed a request
letter for some more time.
List on 26.06.2012.
However, complainant submits that matter has been settled with the accused.
Accused in person.
Today, only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused.
It appears that matter was listed for defence evidence. However, accused not taken any defence till
the actual date of hearing whereas he could have filed the list of witnesses or application for
summoning of witnesses sufficiently before this date so that the date of hearing could have been
utilized in a fruitful manner.
Today, accused has filed only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. praying that cheques be sent for expert
opinion. Copy supplied to the complainant.
Since no other application has been filed by the accused for any other defence witness. It is made
clear that no further opportunity will be given to the accused.
The matter now remains only in respect of the application filed by the accused U/s 243 Cr.P.C.
Accused in person.
Today, only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused.
It appears that matter was listed for defence evidence. However, accused not taken any defence till
the actual date of hearing whereas he could have filed the list of witnesses or application for
summoning of witnesses sufficiently before this date so that the date of hearing could have been
utilized in a fruitful manner.
Today, accused has filed only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. praying that cheques be sent for expert
opinion. Copy supplied to the complainant.
Since no other application has been filed by the accused for any other defence witness. It is made
clear that no further opportunity will be given to the accused.
The matter now remains only in respect of the application filed by the accused U/s 243 Cr.P.C.
Accused absent.
A report received from PS : Patal Nagar stating that they have sent the NBW to the SSP Gangapur,
Rajasthan. Process be awaited.
PS : Patel Nagar is directed to obtain the report in respect of execution of NBW from SSP, Gangapur,
Rajasthan.
Complainant may also assist the police official in execution of the warrant.
C.C.No.6252/1 25.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K.
Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and
263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that I had given the
Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my
signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date. I had
given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However,
some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could
not be made. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was
accordingly replied by me. I admit that I was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in
my bank account. I want to lead defence evidence.
C.C.No.6252/1 25.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused No.1 firm through accused No.2
Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New
Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does
not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against
accused No.1 firm. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant on
behalf of accused No.1 firm. This cheque is from the bank account of accused No.1 firm. The cheque
bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the
date on behalf of accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm had given this cheque in question to the
complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and
orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. Accused No.1 firm had
received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly
replied by the accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm admits that it was not having sufficient amount
to honour the cheque in its bank account. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead defence evidence. RO &
AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home
Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6251/1 25.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused No.1 firm through accused No.2
Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New
Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does
not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against
accused No.1 firm. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant on
behalf of accused No.1 firm. This cheque is from the bank account of accused No.1 firm. The cheque
bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the
date on behalf of accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm had given this cheque in question to the
complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and
orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. Accused No.1 firm had
received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly
replied by the accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm admits that it was not having sufficient amount
to honour the cheque in its bank account. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead defence evidence. RO &
AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home
Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6251/1 25.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K.
Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and
263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that I had given the
Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my
signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date. I had
given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However,
some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could
not be made. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was
accordingly replied by me. I admit that I was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in
C.C.No.6253/1 25.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K.
Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and
263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that I had given the
Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my
signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date. I had
given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However,
some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could
not be made. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was
accordingly replied by me. I admit that I was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in
my bank account. I want to lead defence evidence.
C.C.No.6253/1 25.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused No.1 firm through accused No.2
Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New
Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does
not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against
accused No.1 firm. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant on
behalf of accused No.1 firm. This cheque is from the bank account of accused No.1 firm. The cheque
bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the
date on behalf of accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm had given this cheque in question to the
complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and
orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. Accused No.1 firm had
received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly
replied by the accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm admits that it was not having sufficient amount
to honour the cheque in its bank account. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead defence evidence. RO &
AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Peush Kumar
Kasera Vs. Virender Gupta C.C.No.2009/12 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Peush Kumar Kasera,
Complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1 which
bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my pre- summoning evidence.
On S.A.
I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been
amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in respect of this cheque in question. I
have received Rs.12,100/- from the accused. The complainant company is in possession of some
other cheques of the accused which will be returned within 10 days. Therefore, the present
complaint be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI
Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Peush Kumar Kasera Vs. Virender Gupta C.C.No.2009/12
25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after
considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs.
Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that
prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused Virender Gupta for the next date of hearing. Complainant
shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in
section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to
dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
C.C.No.2752/10 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Vikramjit Saini, Ld. Counsel for Complainant.
Without oath I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that I have
instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case since the matter has been
amicably settled in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. The complainant has no
further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due. Therefore, the matter be allowed to
be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI
Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Sanjay Garg C.C.No.4899/10
25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the
accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. I have received Rs.10,000/- from
the accused. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards him.
Therefore, the matter be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
C.C.No.
On S.A.
I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which
bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/7. I
further say that I have also filed two other complaints against accused Vinod Sharma at the same
address and envelopes containing the notice in those cases have been received back. I close my
evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012
Amit Gadia Vs. Dreeshti Aircon (P) Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.
On S.A.
I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which
bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/14. I
close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI
Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Dreeshti Aircon (P) Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.
On S.A.
I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which
bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/16. I
close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI
Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Dreeshti Aircon (P) Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.
25.04.2012
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after
considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs.
Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that
prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the next date of hearing.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in
section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to
dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
C.C.No.
25.04.2012
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after
considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs.
Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that
prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the next date of hearing.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in
section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to
dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
25.04.2012
The offence is bailable one and this is the first appearance of the accused. Therefore, accused No.4 is
admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
Accused furnished the bail bond. Accepted subject to his filing of necessary documents regarding
soundness of the Surety.
Convict prayed for leniency on the ground that only for the sake of ego, the complainant has dragged
him into the litigation.
I have considered the submissions of the accused. A bare perusal of the file goes to show that convict
has deliberately delayed the matter.
I consider that ends of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to a simple imprisonment of
six months together with a fine of Rs.76,000/-.
Be awaited.
Convict is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of
Rs.10,000/-.
Convict, however, seeks sometime to furnish the surety and submits that he may be on personal bail
till the next date.
List on 27.04.2012.
Ld. Counsel argued that the convict has already fulfilled his obligation by paying the entire fine
amount of Rs.50,000/- as he has deposited Rs.30,000/- which has been released to the
complainant as compensation and has also deposited Rs.20,000/- with the DLSA.
Ld. Counsel submits that due to bonafide mistake, the convict deposited the remaining amount of
Rs.20,000/- with DLSA instead of depositing the same in the court.
He submits that he has filed a copy of receipt No.50103 dated 01.09.2011 received from DLSA.
Ld. Counsel further argued that earlier they have moved an application for withdrawal of amount
before the DLSA but the same was not fruitful.
Ld. Counsel, however, argued that the DLSA is also an instrument of the state and, therefore, the
amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited with the DLSA may be treated as sufficient compliance in respect
of order dated 03.08.2011.
Ld. Counsel further submits that convict is a government employee and he has deposited the total
amount of fine i.e. Rs.50,000/-, nothing survives in the case.
Ahlmad is further warned to be careful in future so that he can place the files on the fixed dates.
C.C.No.1178/10, 1194/10 & 1202/10 25.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
It appears that on 19.10.2011, Official Liquidator of the accused company was directed to be called,
however, no report is available in this respect.
List on 05.06.2012.
Accused in person.
It appears that on 19.10.2011, Official Liquidator of the accused company was directed to be called,
however, no report is available in this respect.
List on 05.06.2012.
C.C.No.5331/11, 5306/11, 5330/11, 5313/11 & 5321/11 25.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
It appears that NBWs were to be issued against the accused who are stated to be now in Nepal.
There is no report in this respect.
Let NBWs be issued against the accused persons through proper channel as per rules for 05.10.2012.
Complainant submits that payment of Rs.70,000/- is remaining whereas the accused submits that
only Rs.30,000/- is remaining.
Even the accused has not paid any amount till date after cancellation of NBW on 27.01.2012.
Even on 10.01.2012, similar submission was made by the complainant. I consider that accused is
only delaying the matter on the pretext of payment. The present files are showing the most casual
approach on the part of the accused.
It appears that on earlier occasions, several opportunities were given to the accused to lead defence
evidence. However, he failed to lead any such defence evidence.
Consequently, on 12.07.2011, opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed and matter was
directed to be listed for final arguments.
However, thereafter, accused absented himself and further when he appeared, he made submissions
for payment. However, as indicated above, accused is only delaying the matter on the pretext of
payment.
In the entire facts and circumstances, no further opportunity can be given to the accused.
Parties submit that within 10 days time they will come with a complete settlement.
Since the compounding is a matter between the parties and both the parties are willing for
settlement, one more opportunity is given to the parties.
List on 08.05.2012.
Accused in person.
Adjourned to 04.05.2012.
25.04.2012
Present: None.
It appears that on the last date no one was present on behalf of the complainant.
SHO be called in respect of clarification for execution of processes in this case against the accused.
Matter is listed for final arguments. However, proxy counsel for the accused is seeking time to
advance arguments for want of ld. main counsel.
Adjourned to 26.04.2012.
He has relied upon ED Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Shankar II (1992) BC 525 and also on AIR 1996 SC
2339 in a paragraph from the book Canon on Banking Loans.
It appears that complainant has also filed a reply to the application of the accused moved U/s 145(2)
NI Act.
I have heard both the ld. counsels on the plea raised and submissions made.
I am of the opinion that accused has made out a case for cross-examination of the complainant. The
application is allowed.
List on 05.06.2012.
C.C.No.6251/1, 6252/1 & 6253/1 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused Mukesh Sharma submits that he will be representing the accused firm.
Accordingly, accusation explained over to the accused firm and individual accused.
Accused to take all necessary steps before the next date failing which the opportunity to lead defence
evidence was automatically stand closed.
Ld. Counsel for the accused seeks some more time for depositing the cost.
Today matter was listed for defence evidence. The accused, however, filed an application U/s 145(2)
NI Act. I have heard both the ld. counsels.
Primary defence taken by the accused is that blank signed cheque was given to the complainant as a
security for the purpose of arranging finance of Rs.1 lac which the complainant failed to arrange.
Ld. counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer on the ground that no law requires that the
whole body of the cheque must be filled in by the drawer itself.
During the arguments, ld. counsel for the accused failed to disclose anything whether accused had
ever taken any legal action against the complainant for misuse of the alleged security cheque.
I consider that once the signature is admitted on cheque accused cannot escape on the pretext that
other columns were not filled in by her. Accused has also not taken any legal action against the
complainant for misuse of the alleged cheque.
If we allow such plea to prevail, every accused by raising a plea of security cheque can claim a right
of cross-examination only for the sake of his pleasure. The concept of security is specially within the
knowledge of accused and, therefore, it is for the accused to establish the same in terms of
Section-106 Evidence Act. It may be noted that complainant has already established the foundation
for invoking Section-106 Evidence Act on the basis of mandatory presumptions of law available U/s
118 and Section-139 NI Act which even includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
(see the judgment of three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa vs Sri
Mohan decided on 7 May, 2010 so far as the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability).
In the present case, accused has delayed the matter to the fullest extent and again chose to delay the
matter by filing this application when the matter is listed for defence evidence. Such practice cannot
be encouraged.
However, considering the fact that the matter attracts criminal liability, one more opportunity is
given to the accused to establish her particular defence or she has to take all necessary steps within
20 days failing which the opportunity shall automatically stand closed.
List on 05.06.2012.
Process issued U/s 83 Cr.P.C. received back with a report no movable or immovable property in the
name of accused.
The affidavit of the complainant can be read in evidence whenever the accused is apprehended. As
such there is no necessity to proceed U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he has received relevant documents from the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed by the ld. counsel on behalf of the accused on the ground
that a family member of the accused has expired yesterday and accused has gone to Faridabad.
The exemption is only allowed subject to furnishing of sufficient proof of attending cremation.
Adjourned to 08.06.2012.
Office has not issued fresh notice whereas specific direction was given to issue the notice within
three days.
Be awaited.
List on 04.09.2012.
Whereas ld. counsel submits that he has already filed necessary process fee.
C.C.No.3434/10
25.04.2012
Present: None.
Ahlmad to also make his report in terms of the last order for which only one opportunity is given to
the Ahlmad.
List on 04.09.2012.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/121794152/ 23
M/S Capital Books Pvt. Ltd. vs . Theodore Branganza on 25 April, 2012
C.C.No.3559/10
25.04.2012
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be also issued afresh to be executable on or before 07.05.2012 for
08.06.2012.
A Notice for the last date i.e. 14.01.2012 has been received with a report Yeh dukan ab pata nahi
kahan par gai.
No one is appearing on behalf of the complainant for the last several dates.
It appears that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the present case otherwise it would have
provided its address or would have diligently followed his case.
Complaint is dismissed.
An exemption application has been filed on the ground that complainant is in Kolkata to attend
wedding ceremonies of his sisters son.
As per Nazarat Branch summons has not been received back from the out of station court.
Let fresh summons be issued through all available modes for 05.09.2012.
An exemption application has been filed on the ground that complainant is in Kolkata to attend
wedding ceremonies of his sisters son.
As per Nazarat Branch summons has not been received back from the out of station court.
Let fresh summons be issued through all available modes for 05.09.2012.
Summons sent by speed post received back with a report no such person.
List on 05.09.2012.
It appears that on 24.08.2011, opportunity was given to the accused to lead defence evidence,
however, till date accused has not taken any steps in this respect.
Constable Mukesh is present and submitted that he had executed the process on 06.02.2012.
It appears that the date of hearing was 22.02.2012 and, therefore, no mandatory 30 days period was
provided by the police official.
An explanation in this respect be called from the concerned SHO within five days.
List on 02.05.2012.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused is
down with Viral Fever.
The application is completely frivolous being without any supporting proof or details.
Even the ld. main counsel for the accused is not available.
Complainant submits that he is ready for cross-examination, therefore, application of the accused
moved U/s 145(2) NI Act is allowed.
List on 04.06.2012.