Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND Ld.. SESSIONS
JUDGE-02-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS ACT, NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 196/2025
Zed Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Property No. 194, Shop No. 2, Pocket 16,
Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi -110085
Through Authorized Representative
Mr. Kaushal Kumar
….Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
1. Naveen Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Murari Lal Gupta
R/o H – 19/52, Third Floor,
Sector 7, Rohini,
New Delhi -110085 ….Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present criminal revision, the
revisionist/petitioner has filed the present revision petition
against the impugned order of Ms. Ebbani Aggarwal, Ld.
JMFC-03, NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi dated 19.05.2025 whereby
the application filed by the revisionist u/s 311 Cr. P.C was
dismissed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the revisionist that he has
filed an application u/s 311 Cr. P.C for summoning Bank
Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Rohini Branch as a witness to
C.R. No. 196/2025 Zed Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta Page no. 1
-- 1 of 3 --
verify the bank statements and confirm that complainant’s bank
accounts were operational during relevant period of transactions.
However, the said application was necessitated due to evidence
led by defendant witness who falsely claimed that complainant’s
bank account was closed, thereby casting doubt on transaction
amounting to Rs. 97,00,000/- made to respondent/accused.
3. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the
judgments titled as
Shailesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, Crl.
Rev No. 252 of 2023.
4. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent submits
that the revision is not maintainable. He has also relied upon the
judgment of
Mohd. Hasan @ Nanhe Vs. State.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The main case pertaining to the present revision is of year,
2016. The statement of accused was recorded on 05.02.2018.
Complainant was examined on 09.11.2016. By the present
revision application, the applicant wants to summon DW3.
Witness from Kotal Mahindra Bank was examined as DW3 on
05.03.2020. Witness has also been cross examined by the
revisionist. Now, this application to summon the witness was
moved after a gap of approximately 5 years. Nothing has been
stated regarding the delay in filing the aforesaid application u/s
311 Cr. P.C. It has been rightly pointed out by Ld. MM in the
C.R. No. 196/2025 Zed Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta Page no. 2
-- 2 of 3 --
impugned order that the relevant work available with the
complainant/revisionist from the date of filing of the complaint
or at any later stage with the permission of the court. Now, the
trial is at the stage of final arguments and being an old matter, the
same cannot be further delayed for no substantive ground in the
application. Even otherwise, the orders on application u/s 311 Cr.
P.C are interlocutory in nature hence not subject to revision.
7. In view of discussion above held I do not find any
infirmity in the order of Ld. MM. Hence the revision is
dismissed. TCR Record be sent back.
8. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court
on 31th October, 2025
(Shivaji Anand)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/31.10.2025
C.R. No. 196/2025 Zed Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta Page no. 3
-- 3 of 3 --