Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 v. Ms. Jai Jagdambay Trading Company, Grain Market Phillaur

was directed to deposit the publication charges. The first date granted for deposit of publication charges was 27.2.2006 and notice of proclamation was ordered to be published for

10.05.2006. The complainant, however, did not deposit the publication charges. Thereafter, a number of dates were granted to the complainant/petitioner, for depositing the publication charges, but it failed to do so. On 15.09.2008, neither the duly authorised representative of the complainant was present, nor its Counsel was present, nor the publication charges had been deposited. It means that for a period of two years, the complainant-petitioner just took the dates for deposit of publication charges, but failed to do so. Instead of complying with the orders of the Court, and putting in appearance, or causing the appearance of its Counsel, it Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -5- preferred to remain absent on 15.9.2008. The presence of the authorised representative of the complainant or its Counsel, on the date fixed, was essential for further progress of the case. A litigant who takes the litigation, in a casual manner, and just wasted the time of the Court, for a period of about 7 years (from the date of filing the complaint), does not need the indulgence of the Court in any manner. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the presence of the complainant or its Counsel on the date fixed, was not necessary , is mis-conceived. Had any steps been not required to be taken by the complainant/petitioner towards the progress of the case on the date fixed i.e. 15.9.2008, it would have been said that the Court could exempt its presence. But since the steps were required to be taken for the progress of the case, on the date fixed, the absence of the duly authorised representative of the complainant or its Counsel, clearly showed that there was willful and deliberate default on the part of the complainant. Even the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner or its Counsel was not aware of the order of deposit of publication charges, is belied by the record. The Revisional Court was, thus, right in holding that no explanation, what to speak of plausible, was furnished for non-appearance of the authorised representative Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -6- of the complainant or its counsel on the date fixed. Even an award has been passed, in favour of the complainant by the Arbitrator, and on the basis thereof, it can recover the amount

8. The orders impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

9. For the reasons, recorded above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. July 30, 2010 dinesh/Gaurav.A. ( SHAM SUNDER ) JUDGE