TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") in a Criminal Complaint dated 26.02.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 had been adjourned on account of COVID pandemic and has referred to the zimni orders from 06.02.2021 to 23.09.2021. It is further submitted that from the zimni order dated 06.02.2021, it is apparent that the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was to be recorded and notice was issued for 18.08.2021 and thereafter, the fresh notices were issued on 18.02.2021 as well as on 25.03.2021 and thereafter, on 03.05.2021, the case was adjourned on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.12.2021, had not challenged the said order and in fact, moved an application dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure P-5) for extension of time to deposit the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-. It is argued that vide order dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure P-6), an application was moved and the petitioner was directed to deposit penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 30 days from 15.12.2021. It is further argued that the order dated 15.12.2021 is not under challenge in the present proceedings, thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the said ground alone. It is contended that in the present case, a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is with respect to the loan taken by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 27,60,000/- and fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken on record. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record. It is not in dispute that after passing of order dated 02.12.2021, the petitioner had moved an application dated 15.12.2021 for extension of time to deposit the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-. On 15.12.2021, the Sessions Judge, Sirsa was pleased to pass the following order:- "Present: Applicant Harjit Singh in person represented by Shri Ramesh Mehta, Advocate. This criminal miscellaneous application for extension of time to deposit penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- presented today. It is already checked and registered. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is hand to mouth and he has suffered various injuries in a road-sid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oured, the present complaint was filed. On 07.06.2018, the petitioner had not appeared and accordingly, his bail was cancelled. Order dated 07.06.2018 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Present: Complainant Ravi Grover in person represented by Shri M.S. Sethi, Advocate for complainant-Bank Accused Harjit Singh not present Today the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant, however despite repeated calls since morning neither accused Harjit Singh has appeared nor any intimation on his behalf has been received. It is 3.30 pm. Waited sufficiently. No further wait is justified. Thus bail of accused Harjit Singh stands cancelled and his bail bonds stands forfeited to the State. Let presence of accused Harjit Singh be secured through warr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....despite calling the case several times since morning. It is already 3:30 pm. No further wait is justified. Hence, bail of accused is cancelled and his bonds forfeited to the State. Now, accused be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 09.08.2019. Notice to his surety under Section 446 Cr.P.C. be also issued for the date fixed. (Vinay Sharma) JMIC/Sirsa (UID No.HR0292) Date of Order: 25.07.2019" The petitioner thereafter, filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court against the order dated 21.09.2019, which was allowed and opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the CW who had not been cross-examined earlier, subject to the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. However, thereafter, the complainant did not come pre....