High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

S.K. Malhotra Alias Sanjiv Kumar … vs Sh. B.L. Sharma on 4 October, 2011

Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.K. Malhotra Alias Sanjiv Kumar … vs Sh. B.L. Sharma on 4 October, 2011
Crl. Misc. No.337-MA of 2009
                                                                               -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                              Crl. Misc. No.337-MA of 2009
                                              Date of decision: 04.10.2011

S.K. Malhotra alias Sanjiv Kumar Malhotra @ Sanjiv Malhotra
                                                        ....Appellant
                             Versus

Sh. B.L. Sharma
                                                                  ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

Present: - Ms. Avinash Mandla, Advocate, for
           Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
           Mr. P.B. Vasudeva, Advocate, for the respondent.

            1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
            2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
            3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                       *****

ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL)

Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 20.3.2009 by

the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh, refusing adjournment and

exemption of personal appearance of the complainant. Impugned order

further reveals that Mr. Gagandeep, proxy counsel for the complainant

was present before the Magistrate, however, learned Magistrate

dismissed the complaint having observed that present complaint is one

of the oldest cases identified by the High Court to be disposed of at the

earliest.

In the opinion of this Court, if proxy counsel was present

before the Magistrate and was asking adjournment, adjournment ought

not to have been refused merely because case is oldest one, if otherwise
Crl. Misc. No.337-MA of 2009
-2-

Magistrate finds that adjournment is sought on the sufficient ground,

therefore, order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Magistrate cannot be

sustained in the eye of law.

Order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Magistrate is set aside.

Complaint is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to

appear before the Judicial Magistrate on 15.11.2011. Learned

Magistrate is requested to make every effort to conclude the complaint

preferably within ten months from 15.11.2011.

(Alok Singh)
Judge
October 04, 2011
R.S.