Delhi District Court
Axis Bank vs Jugal Kishore Sharma on 17 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH.NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SPECIAL COURT06, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
AXIS BANK
VERSUS
JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA
P.S.: SABZI MANDI
U/S: 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
1. Serial No/ CC No. of the case : 32326/10
2. Name of the complainant : Axis Bank Ltd. [Formerly known as UTI
Bank Ltd.] At Trishul, 3rd Floor, Law
Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad - 3800009
Also At [Branch Office] 4/6B, Asaf Ali
road, New Delhi Through Mr.Gopal Bora,
Deputy Manager, RAC Axis Bank Ltd.
3. Date of institution : 23.01.2010
4. Name of the accused, his : Jugal Kishore Sharma, House No D - 13, parentage and residence Pansheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, New Delhi - 110 032.
Also At [Official Address] - Shop No. A2, 2nd Floor, 107273, Bara Bazar, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi - 110 006 CC No 32326/10 1 of 18
5. Date when judgment was : 14.02.2011 reserved
6. Date when judgment was : 17.02.2011 pronounced
7. Offence complained of and : Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proved
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
9. Final Judgment : Accused found guilty of offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and convicted for the same.
:J U D G M E N T: 1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the complaint in hand filed by the complainant Axis Bank Ltd. under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) against the accused Jugal Kishore Sharma.
2 Facts necessary to be adumbrated are that the complainant is a banking company having its branch office at New Delhi. Accused had taken personal loan of Rs. 7,04,000/ from the said branch of the complainant bank and for the repayment of the said loan the accused gave 5 cheques bearing no. 538394, 538396, 538397, 538398 and 538399 of Rs. 21,611/ each dated 20.07.2009, 20.08.2009, 20.09.2009 and 20.10.2009 drawn on Canara Bank, CC No 32326/10 2 of 18 Shankar Nagar, New Delhi. The said 5 cheques got dishonored vide returning advice dt. 04.11.2009 with the endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, complainant bank issued the legal notice on 02.12.2009 through courier and UPC at the residential address as well as the official address of the accused demanding Rs. 1,08,055/ being the aggregate amount of the said 5 cheques. The letter addressed to the residential address of the accused returned with the remarks "Addressee refused to Accept" on 07.12.2009 and the letter addressed to the official address of the accused was delivered on 04.12.2009. Despite service of the legal notice the accused did not pay the said cheque amount within the stipulated period of 15 days as envisaged by Section 138 NI Act, hence the present complaint. 3 After taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, summons were issued to the accused post which accused entered appearance on 26.02.2010 and was admitted to bail. Thereafter, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused encompassing all the accusations against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his defence, accused stated that the cheques in question were given as security cheques.
4 In complainant's evidence, CW1 i.e, authorized representative of the complaint was examined who tendered his post summoning evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. CW1/A and has relied upon the following documents. The true copies of office order, extract of resolution and General Power of Attorney are Ex.CW1/3 (colly), cheques alongwith cheque returning advice are Ex. CW1/3 to Ex. CW1/8, true copy of the legal notice, courier receipts, postal receipts of UPC and delivery report of courier on both the addresses of the accused are respectively exhibited as Ex.CW1/9 to Ex.CW1/13. In the cross examination of the CW1 i.e, AR CC No 32326/10 3 of 18 for the complainant AR, it was stated that accused had availed a loan of Rs. 7,04,000/ which had to be repaid by the accused in equated monthly installments of Rs. 21,000/ each approximately. Regarding the mode of payment of EMI, CW1 stated that he was oblivious of the fact whether the EMI was to be paid through cheque or electronic clearing system [ECS]. It was volunteered by CW1 that EMI's towards repayment of the loan could be paid by way of cheque, demand draft, cash or in other mode acceptable by the bank. CW1 denied the suggestion that the cheques in question were issued as security cheques and also that the accused had paid the EMI only through ECS. It was further deposed by CW1 that at the time of granting the loan to the accused all the terms and conditions were explained to him. It was admitted by CW1 that accused had paid 16 installments of Rs. 21,611/ each as on 10th December, 2009. 5 Complainant's evidence was followed by Statement of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidences were put to the accused. The accused admitted to have received the loan of Rs. 7,04,000/ as has been alleged by the complainant. Regarding the issuance of the cheques, accused had stated that although the cheques in question bear his signature but the body of the cheques was not filled by him. Accused admitted to have received the legal demand notice and also stated that he could not make the payment as he was not having sufficient money to pay the same. 6 In defence evidence accused examined himself by filing application under Section 315 Cr.P.C and stated that he had given 5 blank cheques to the complainant bank for security purpose and body of the cheques was not filled by him. It was further deposed by the accused that the loan was repaid through ECS. In cross examination accused admitted that loan agreement was executed between him and the complainant bank and loan was to be CC No 32326/10 4 of 18 repaid in EMI of Rs. 21,611/ each. It was stated by the accused that he had never repaid his loan through cash. It was admitted by the accused that the loan agreement Ex. CW1/A1 (Colly) bears his signature. Regarding the Clause (3) of the loan agreement which contains the provision about giving of post dated cheques at the time of disposal of the loan, accused stated that he has not read the loan agreement. It was further stated by the accused that till the month of December, 2009 he had paid approximately 15 to 20 installments to the complainant bank through ECS. It was admitted by the accused that he did not pay the amount of Rs. 1,08,055/ within 15 days of receiving of legal demand notice which he was liable to pay. DE stood closed vide order dt. 31st January, 2011 7 After adducing defence evidence, Learned counsels for complainant and accused addressed their respective final arguments at length. Before appreciating the evidences and arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to advert to the relevant provisions of N.I Act.
Section 138 of N.I Act reads as under
Section 138 of NI Act reads as under: S. 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account - where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement make with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
CC No 32326/10 5 of 18 Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless
(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
(b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
8 Section 138 of the NI Act has three ingredients, viz., (i) that there is a legally enforeceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which pre supposes a legally enforeceable debt; and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance of legal requirements before a compliant petition can be acted upon by a court of law.
9 I would now embark upon the evidences adduced and the arguments advanced by both the parties.
Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon following Judgments :
1. Rangappa v. Mohan AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1898 CC No 32326/10 6 of 18
2. Mallavarapu Kasiviweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and others AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2898
3. M.Devaraj v. Johnson 2005(1) DCR219
10 It is contended by learned counsel for the accused that accused took loan from the UTI Bank and not the Axis Bank(complainant bank) and therefore cheques in question could not have been issued in the name of Axis Bank.Learned counsel for the accused has referred to Section 5 and 6 of N.I Act and stated that bill of exchange has to be in favour of certain specified person as is envisaged by Section 5 of N.I Act and in the present complaint Axis Bank is not the proper person. To controvert this, learned counsel for the complainant has averred that Axis Bank was formerly known by the name of UTI Bank and it was just a change of name that occurred and that too in the month of July, 2007 and the loan agreement between the accused and the complainant was entered in January, 2008.To bolster his contentions, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon Fresh Certificate of incorporation which is Ex CW1/1 and Personal loan agreement Ex CW1/A1.
11 Perusal of the complaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit of CW1 i.e Authorized representative of the complainant evinces that complainant bank i.e Axis bank before 30.07.2007 was known as U.T.I Bank Ltd and in this regard the Registrar of Companies, Gujrat, Dadra and Nagar Havelli has issued a fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name in favour of the complainant bank.The true copy of the said certificate is Ex CW1/1.As regards the contention of the learned counsel for accused that loan was taken from U.T.I Bank and not Axis Bank, I hold that Personal Loan agreement Ex. CW1/A1 clearly shows that agreement was entered into between the accused Jugal Kishore Sharma and the Axis CC No 32326/10 7 of 18 Bank Ltd and not the U.T.I Bank as has been alleged by counsel for the accused and moreover no such suggestion or objection was raised in the cross examination of CW1, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the accused that cheques could not have been issued in the name of Axis Bank Ltd does not hold any water.
12 As regards the contention of learned counsel for accused that cheques in question were blank cheques signed by the accused but rest of the contents were in different ink and filled by the complainant, I would like to refer to Section 20 of N.I Act which contains provision regarding "inchoate instrument".
20. Inchoate stamped instruments - Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in [India], and either wholly blank of having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provide that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.
13 In Moideen v. Johny 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 220 (Kerala) , it has been held by Kerala High Court in Paragraph 6 that: "...........Even if a blank cheque is issued as security , the person inpossession of the blank cheque can enter the amount of the liability and present it to the bank.When a blank cheque is issued by one to another , it gives an authority on he person to whom it is issued , to fill up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to the bank."
CC No 32326/10 8 of 18 14 In "Ravi Chopra v. State and another" 2008 (102) DRJ 147, it was held by
Hon'ble Justice Murlidhar, that even if the body of the cheque is filled in different ink by some person other than the accused, still the instrument will be valid. Following paragraphs are worth mentioning: "18. Section 20 NI Act talks of "inchoate stamped instruments" and states that if a person signs and delivers a paper stamped in accordance with the law and "either wholly blank or have written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument" such person thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof "to make or complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp." Section 49 permits the holder of a negotiable instrument endorsed in blank to fill up the said instrument "by writing upon the endorsement, a direction to pay any other person as endorsee and to complete the endorsement into a blank cheque, it makes it clear that by doing that the holder does not thereby incurred the responsibility of an endorser." Likewise Section 86 states that where the holder acquiesces in a qualified acceptance, or one limited to part of the sum mentioned in the bill, or which substitutes a different place or time for payment, or which, where the drawees are not partners, is not signed by all the drawees, all previous parties whose consent has not been obtained to such acceptance would stand discharged as against the holder and those claiming under him, unless on notice given by the holder they assent to such acceptance. Section 125 NI Act permits the holder of an uncrossed cheque to cross it and that would not render the cheque invalid for the purposes of presentation for payment. These provisions indicate that under the scheme of the NI Act an incomplete cheque which is subsequently filled up as to the name, date and amount is not rendered void only because it was so done after the cheque was signed and delivered to the holder in due course."
"19. The above provisions have to be read together with Section 118 NI CC No 32326/10 9 of 18 Act which sets out various presumptions as to negotiable instruments. The presumption is of consideration, as to date, as to time of acceptance, as to transfer, as to endorsement, as to stamp. The only exception to this is provided in proviso to Section 118 which reads as under:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him."
"20. A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which either defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act. What however is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer. If the signature is altered or does not tally with the normal signature of the maker, that would be a material alteration. therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act."
15 Also in a recent Judgment in "D. Atchyutha Reddy v. State of A.P" through Public Prosecutor 2010(2) RCR 880(A.P) it was held that cheque could be filled up by anybody if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque. It was further held that body of the cheque need not necessarily be written by the accused and it can be in the handwriting of anybody else or typed on a machine, so long as the accused does not dispute the genuineness of the signature on the cheque.
CC No 32326/10 10 of 18 16 From the aforesaid, it is amply clear that to fasten criminal liability upon the
accused under Section 138 of the Act it is not necessary that body of the cheque must be filled by the accused. What is important is the signature on the cheque which in the present complaint is not disputed by the accused. Hence, this argument of the learned counsel for the accused is without any force.
17 Another argument raised by counsel for the accused is that Loan was supposed to be repaid through ECS (Electronic Clearing System) and all the instalments have been paid by the accused through ECS only and therefore cheques in question could not have been issued to pay the instalments towards loan account. In retort, learned counsel for the complainant argues that it is nowhere mentioned in the loan agreement that loan was to be repaid through ECS only and that accused has not placed on record any document showing that he had paid his monthly instalments through ECS.To substantiate his argument, he has invited the attention of the court to the cross examination of CW 1 wherein it has been stated by the witness that accused could pay his monthly instalments by way of cheque, demand draft, cash or any other mode acceptable by the bank. Learned counsel for the complainant has further drawn the attention of this court to the statement of account of the accused Ex CW1/A2 and stated that statement clearly shows that sometimes the instalments were paid through cash also so it cannot be said that ECS was the only mode of payment of instalments. 18 I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant as accused has failed to prove that ECS was the only mode of payment of instalments towards the Loan amount. Merely deposing that payment had been made through ECS only would not advance CC No 32326/10 11 of 18 the cause of the accused.Accused could have placed on record his own bank statement of account to substantiate his contention that monthly instalments were paid through ECS.Also in the cross examination of the accused , he was asked whether there was any clause in the loan agreement which mandated that instalments have to be paid through ECS only to which he replied that he did not know as he had not read the loan document. Moreover no suggestion or question was put the complainant witness regarding the statement of account. Only suggestion that was put to the witness was that EMI had been through ECS only which was denied by the witness. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence that ECS was the only mode of payment, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that Cheques in question could not have been issued as instalments towards the loan amount falls face down. 19 Another argument raised by learned counsel for accused is that the cheques in question were issued as security cheques and not as instalments towards the loan.On the other hand counsel for the complainant has argued that those cheques were not security cheques rather they were post dated cheques taken at the time of the loan.He referred to Clause 3 of the Loan agreement Ex CW1/A1 which reads as under :
" the borrower has signed and handed over to the bank post dated cheques setting out the amount of each instalments and the date on which it is payable , in order to enable the bank to adjust and appropriate the amount standing in the account of the borrower against the amount of instalments due on the date of the appropriation.If at any time any cheque is dishonoured , it shall be deemed to be an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , which will enable the banker to initiate the necessary legal proceedings against the borrower."
CC No 32326/10 12 of 18 20 It is amply clear from the aforementioned clause that at the time of disbursal of the
loan post dated cheques were handed over to the complainant bank to appropriate the amount standing in the account of the borrower against the amount of instalments. The contention that blank signed cheque was handed over as security inherently arouses dissatifaction and reservation in the mind. The laudable commercial morality which the legislature seeks to usher in by introduction of Section 138 of NI Act will be frustrated and stultified if such a defence were meekly swallowed by any court. The account holders are expected to deal with their cheques carefully, cautiously and reasonably. They are not expected to deal with their cheques playfully, casually and without deligence. Such a defence that the cheque was handed over as a blank signed and as security may still not be impermissible or impossible in a prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act. But certainly the burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from liability. Accused has failed to lead any evidence in support of his stand that the cheques were security cheques and had it been so then accused could have asked for the return of the cheques one by one once he started paying his instalments by any mode be it cash or ECS. Although in the cross examination of CW1 a suggestion was put to the witness in this regard but the same was denied by him, therefore, there is no ground to disbelieve the version of the complainant that cheques in question were given as instalments cheques towards the loan amount.
21 Regarding the averment of the learned counsel for the accused that cheque returning memo is not original but a photocopy , I hold that objection regarding the mode of proof of certain document can be taken at the time the document is sought to be exhibited or in the cross examination but nowhere in the cross examination of the complainant witness any CC No 32326/10 13 of 18 such suggestion was put, therefore, at the belated stage of final arguments counsel for the accused cannot be permitted to raise objection as to mode of proof of return memo and moreover original returning memo was produced at the time of complainant evidence which was seen and returned and copy of the same was tendered in the evidence, therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the accused cannot be sustained. 22 After deliberating upon the arguments and evidences of both the parties , let us now see whether in the present complaint, all the ingredients of offence under section 138 of N.I Act stand fulfilled or not.
23 Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability.
It is clear from the provision of section 138 N.I. Act that only after the cheque is drawn to discharge in whole or in part any debt or liability by the accused when presented before the bank was returned on the ground of insufficient fund standing in the credit of the account of the accused or some other reason.The explanation to the above said provision of law clearly tells that to attract an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act there shall be a legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of the drawal of the cheque. 24 At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions in Section 118 and 139 of N.I Act. Under Section 118, unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the Negotiable Instrument (including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. Under section 139 the Court has to presume, unless the contrary was proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of a debt or liability. Thus, in complaints under Section 138 the court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for CC No 32326/10 14 of 18 a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused. The Supreme Court in "Hiten P. Dalal V. Bratindranath Banerjee", 2001 Crl. L.J 4647 while dealing with sections 138 and 139 of NI Act held that whenever a cheque was issued to the complainant for a specific amount, there is a presumption that it is towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. In the event of dispute, the burden is on the accused to prove that there is no subsisting liability as on the date of issuing of cheque and the proof must be sufficient to rebut the presumption and mere explanation is not sufficient. So, there is obligation on the part of the Court to raise the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act in every case where the factual basis for raising of the presumption had been established and unless the accused adduces sufficient cogent evidence to rebut the presumption in terms of section 118 and 139 of the N.I Act, he cannot avoid the criminal liability arising under section 138 of the Act. 25 In the complaint in hand, CW1 has stated in his evidence by way of affidavit that accused had taken personal loan of Rs 7,04,000/ from the complainant and for the repayment of the said loan, the accused gave the cheques in question. Personal loan agreement Ex.CW1/A1 clearly evinces that agreement was entered into between the accused and complainant whereby accused borrowed sum of Rs 7,04,000/ which was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly instalments of Rs.21,611 each. All these facts have been admitted by the accused in his cross examiantion.Further, the statement of account of the accused Ex CW1/A2 filed by the complainant shows that cheques in question were instalments cheques which got bounced on their respective dates. No suggestion was put to the witness CW1 regarding the statement of account thereby admitting the claim of the complainant. In view of this, I hold that accused has failed to rebut the presumption that has arisen in favour of the complainant by CC No 32326/10 15 of 18 virtue of section 139 of N.I Act 26 Drawing of the cheque for some amount Accused has not disputed the issuance and drawing of the cheques in question. The only contention of the accused is that cheques have been issued blank and that the particulars of the cheques have not been filled by him. The said contention of the accused has already been dealt with earlier. Therefore, first ingredient of the offence under section 138 of N.I Act stands established.
27 Presentation of Cheque to the banker and return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank.
The cheques in question were presented for encashment in the banker of the complainant which returned unpaid by the drawee bank with the endorsement "funds insufficient".Cheque Return Advice is Ex CW1/8.So second ingredient of the offence also stands established.
28 Giving of notice by the holder of the cheque or payee to drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount.
Legal notice Ex CW1/9 containing the details regarding the cheques in question and calling upon the accused to pay Rs 1,08,055/ (aggregate of the cheques amount) within 15 days of the receipt of the notice was sent at the addresses of the accused Mr. Jugal Kishore Sharma, House No. D13, Pansheel Garden, Naveen Sahadara, New Delhi110032 and also at his official address i.e Shop No A2, Second Floor, 10721073, Bara Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi110006. The receipt of legal demand notice has not been disputed by the accused as CC No 32326/10 16 of 18 neither any suggestion regarding the nonreceipt of legal notice has been put to CW1 nor accused has raised the same in his defence evidence. The accused has also in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C admitted the receipt of legal notice. Therefore, the third ingredient of the offence also stands established.
29 Failure of the drawer to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of such notice.
After the receipt of legal notice neither the acused had replied to such notice nor did he make the payment within the stipulated period of 15 days as is clear from the cross examination of the accused wherein he stated that he did not make the payment of Rs 1,08,055 as demanded in the legal notice. Therefore, last ingredient of the offence also stands established.
The complainant has proved basic facts of borrowing of loan and issuing of Ex CW1/3 to 7 cheques by the accused. Once the basic facts stand proved by the complainant, he discharges the initial burden. Then, it is for the accused to rebut the presumptions that are drawn in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act. He can make out his case from material brought on record by the complainant. Though complainant witness was cross examined by the accused, nothing material was elicited to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I Act.
30 Thus the complainant is able to establish that the accused borrowed Rs 7,04,000/ and issued Ex CW1/3 to 7 cheques amounting to Rs. 1,08,055/ dated 20/06/2009 , 20/07/2009 , 20/08/2009 , 20/09/2009 , 20/10/2009. On presentation of the cheques, it came to be dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds" vide return CC No 32326/10 17 of 18 memo Ex CW1/8 and thereupon the complainant issued ExCW1/9 notice calling upon him to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question. The accused received the notice but failed to give any reply. The complainant presented the complaint. All the essential ingredients of Section 138 N.I Act have been made out by the complainant. Therefore, the accused stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA)
COURT ON 17.02.2011 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SPECIAL COURT 06,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CC No 32326/10 18 of 18