w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Kripal Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Others v/s Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27100MH1984PLC034003

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106DL2006PLC149653

Company & Directors' Information:- J. J. IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106MH2008PTC188056

Company & Directors' Information:- KRIPAL ALLOY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27101OR1990PTC002608

Company & Directors' Information:- A M R IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH2003PTC140824

Company & Directors' Information:- K L IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310UP2012PTC051496

Company & Directors' Information:- J P IRON AND STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = U27106PB1994PLC014838

Company & Directors' Information:- P P IRON & STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106080

Company & Directors' Information:- G K IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13100KA2005PLC065824

Company & Directors' Information:- O P G IRON & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC103315

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. IRON & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2008PTC123843

Company & Directors' Information:- R P K ALLOY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104TN1989PTC016867

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28111UP1995PTC018405

Company & Directors' Information:- G R IRON & STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053653

Company & Directors' Information:- D A IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27103PB1994PTC014497

Company & Directors' Information:- P S IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2000PTC023340

Company & Directors' Information:- J D ALLOY STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27106CH1981PTC004509

Company & Directors' Information:- B D K ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U27106KA1973PTC002355

Company & Directors' Information:- C M D IRON & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100UP2013PTC057889

Company & Directors' Information:- K M D IRON & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300UP2013PTC055973

Company & Directors' Information:- D N IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2004PTC126698

Company & Directors' Information:- VERSUS IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109MH1997PTC109497

    Criminal Application (APL) No. 568 of 2011

    Decided On, 21 March 2012

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur


    For the Applicants: S.V. Bhutada, Advocate. For the Respondent: D.C. Daga, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

Heard Mr. S.V. Bhutada, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. D.C. Daga, learned Counsel for the non-applicant.

2. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The applicants are the accused in Criminal Complaint Case No.6997/2005 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Nagpur. They are summoned by the Magistrate to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that none of the applicants have appeared before the Court personally till today.

4. The applicants feel aggrieved by the order of learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Nagpur rejecting their prayer for condonation of delay in filing the revision application against the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate. The complaint in question was filed on 21st May, 2005 and process was issued against all the applicants on the same day. The applicants had appeared before the learned trial Court for the first time through their lawyer on 6th February, 2007, though the summons were served upon them on 10th November, 2006.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhutada has submitted that delay, in fact, should have been condoned by the learned Sessions Judge as the applicants were justified in filing the revision application at a later stage inasmuch as they had never been supplied with the copy of the complaint by the non-applicant, though it is mandatory provision under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is pointed out that an application was made before the learned Magistrate on 6th February, 2007 itself praying for a copy of complaint to be supplied by the non-applicant. Mr. Bhutada has pointed out that the learned Magistrate has not passed any order on the said application till today. To appreciate this argument on behalf of the applicants, it is necessary to be noted here, and as already stated, that the applicants have never appeared personally before the trial Court till today.

6. The learned Counsel Mr. Daga has brought to my notice that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants repeatedly. Even then they have not even appeared before the trial Court. This is not denied by learned Counsel Mr. Bhutada appearing on behalf of the applicants. Considering the fact that the applicants have intentionally avoided to appear before the learned trial Court, it can safely be presumed that the applicants have schemingly created a situation to be utilized at a later stage to show that the mandatory provisions of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not followed. This is height of dishonesty on the part of the applicants. I do not think such a litigant deserves any relief in the nature of condonation of delay. In fact, the present application needs to be dismissed on this count itself.

7. In addition to this, it can be stated here that if the applicants were serious enough to challenge the order, they could have obtained the certified copy of the complaint much earlier in time and could have approached the revisional Court within a reasonable time, may be delay of a few days or few months. The delay in my view is not satisfactorily explain

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed by the applicants. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to be noted that the learned Counsel Mr. Daga has submitted that the proclamations are pending against all the applicants. The learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further with the matter, in accordance with law. The application stands dismissed. Ad interim, if any, stands vacated.