TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omission or irregularity in the charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby . Thus, as per mandate of the section 251 CrPC, no formal notice is required to be framed so long as the substance of the accusation is stated and the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or intent to lead any defence evidence. It is apparent that the petitioner has been found guilty of causing delay in the trial for one 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 - Looking at the overall conduct of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings for one reason or the other, the present petitions are dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. - CRL.M.C. 4320/2019 and CRL.M.C. 4326/2019 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2019 - MR. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby his right to cross-examination was closed. The same was dismissed by Hon ble High Court of Delhi on 04.01.2018. Thereafter, the matter was listed for DE and on 05.12.2018 right to accused to lead DE was closed and matter was posted for final arguments, thereafter, the present revision petition was moved. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the trial court did not frame any formal notice either on 20.12.2016 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 Aak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profitable to refer to Section 464 CrPC which provides that no finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby . 15. In Sanichar Sahni Vs. State of Bihar reported as (2009) 7 SCC 198 , it was held as under:- 25. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. considered the issue of non-framing of charges properly and conviction of an accused for the offences for which he has not been charged and reached the conclusion as under:- 86. In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. .... 87. ..... If it is so grave that prejudice will necessarily be implied or imported, it may be described as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or intent to lead any defence evidence. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been suffered on account 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 first opportunity to file an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was granted to the counsel for the petitioner on 03.11.2016 and thereafter, on 10.11.2016, 18.11.2016, 20.12.2016 and 21.01.2017. After being provided three opportunities to the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
