Rajneesh Arora vs Veena on 23 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajneesh Arora vs Veena on 23 January, 2009
Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009                                -1-

                   AT CHANDIGARH
                                     Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009
                                       Date of Decision:23.01.2009

Rajneesh Arora



Present:-      Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the appellant.

               None for the respondent.


This appeal is directed against order dated 30.7.2007 passed by

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in complaint

No.490 of 4.9.2004 vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the

complaint bearing caption Rajneesh Arora v. Veena in default and acquitted

the accused.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides

perusing the impugned order with due care and circumspection, though

none has come forward to argue on behalf of the respondent- accused.

Learned counsel for the appellant assiduously urged that the

appellant- complainant had been appearing before the learned trial Court

regularly since September, 2004 when he had filed the complaint. The

accused could only be served in the year 2005 whereafter the case was fixed
Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009 -2-

for evidence of the complainant. The evidence could not be recorded as in

between, the negotiations for compromise had started and thus case was

adjourned from time to time. It was in such circumstances that the case had

been adjourned for short dates firstly from 6.7.2007 to 24.7.2007 and then

to 30.7.2007, on which date, the complainant could not put in his

appearance being a government employee and the impugned order was

passed dismissing his complaint and acquitting the accused. The impugned

order being contrary to the principles of law is liable to be set aside.

I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these

submissions. Needless to say, this is a complaint under Section 138/142 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reason assigned by the complainant-

appellant for his absence on 30.7.2007 is that he being a government

employee could not leave his office without prior permission. It would be

too harsh on the complainant- appellant to non-suit him merely for his non-

appearance on one date as he had been regularly appearing on all the dates

since the date of institution of the complaint. An identical view has been

taken by this Court in re: Purushotam Mantri v. Vinod Tandon alias

Hari Nath Tandon, 2008(3) Punjab Law Reporter 595 (P&H).

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is ordered to be

restored to its original number for its decision on merits in accordance with

law. The complainant- appellant is directed to put in his appearance before

the learned trial Court on 27.2.2009. The trial Court shall grant one

opportunity to complainant to adduce his entire evidence on the date to be

fixed by it. However, such date for adducing evidence shall be fixed in

such a manner that there shall be a minimum gap of one month in between
Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009 -3-

27.2.2009 and the date for adducing evidence. The appeal is accordingly

accepted. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this

judgment to the learned trial Court at the earliest possible.

January 23, 2009                                    ( HARBANS LAL )
renu                                                     JUDGE

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information