TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raise identical questions, they are taken up together for disposal. 3. The short question raised in the present petition is whether non-framing of formal notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. would vitiate entire proceedings requiring a fresh trial? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the respondent/complainant filed the aforementioned complaint case against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. For the sake of felicity, the chronological list of events as noted by the revisional court in the impugned order, are reproduced below:- "2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present revision petition are that a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 or 20.01.2017 when the petitioner appeared and this has vitiated the entire trial proceedings. It has been pleaded that the above fact came to knowledge of the present counsel who was recently engaged when the case was listed for final arguments. 7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the case records. 8. It is relevant to note that the present case was fixed for final arguments before the trial court on 04.02.2019, when the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions court impugning the order dated 20.12.2016 and 30.01.2017, seeking the following prayers:- "a. Call for the record of complaint case pending in the court of Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha, KKD courts, Delhi titled as "M/s Aakash M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to explain the substance of accusation to the accused and ask him whether he would plead guilty or has any defence to make, however in terms of the mandate of the Section, it would not be necessary to frame a formal notice. 13. It has neither been pleaded nor argued before this Court that when the petitioner appeared, the Magistrate did not state the substance of the accusation to him or did not ask whether he pleaded guilty or wished to lead any defence evidence. The only argument raised now is that on that date, no formal notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed by the Magistrate. 14. Looking at the issue from another angle as to whether any failure of justice has occurred on account of non framing of formal Notice under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in Willie (William) Slaney and State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy and held that unless there is failure of justice and thereby the cause of the accused has been prejudiced, no interference is required if the conviction can be upheld on the evidence led against the accused. The Court should not interfere unless it is established that the accused persons were in any way prejudiced due to the errors and omissions in framing the charges against him. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar. 27. Therefore, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that unless the convict is able to establish that defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of non-framing of a formal notice. 19. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion as well vide CRL.M.C. 4463/2017 where he challenged the order dated 20.12.2016, i.e., the same order which is again impugned herein, on the ground that his right to cross-examine the complainant was closed. The aforesaid petition came to be dismissed on 04.01.2018. While noting the conduct of the petitioner, it was held as under:- "8. Keeping in mind the above provisions as well as the parameters of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is found as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner was granted several opportunities to file an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne reason or the other. The present case pertains to a complaint of the year 2016. It appears that earlier, the petitioner had deliberately raised a piecemeal challenge to the order dated 20.12.2016 with respect to closure of petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant and now, the very same order is challenged for non-framing of a formal notice under Section 251 CrPC by the trial court. 21. It is relevant to note that the petitioner's statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 06.09.2017 and thereafter, the matter was posted for 16.10.2017 for the purpose of recording defence evidence. Thereafter, on multiple occasions, the petitioner was granted time to lead defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was led and eventua....