Delhi District Court
Shri Narender Kumar Gupta vs Asad Prop M/S Kulsum Handloom Khan on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI
ACT-04, DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Presided over by: Sh. Danveer
CC No.: 12824/19
Unique Case ID No.: DLCT020292152019
In the matter of:
Ms. Usha Nagpal,
W/o Sh. Vinod Nagpal,
R/o House No. C-6/15, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Malka Ganj, Delhi-110007
...Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office At: 161-162, Hardhyan Singh Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
Also At:-
E-12, South Extension-II,
New Delhi-110049
2. Sh. Sanjiv Verma,
Director, M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
3. Sh. Sumit Verma
Director, M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
Digitally signed
by DANVEER
4. Ms. Poonam Verma DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07
16:05:44
+0530
1
CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab
Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Director, M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
5. Sh. Shobhit Verma
Director, M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
...Accused Persons
Date of institution 30.11.2019
Offence complained Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Plea of Accused (Guilty/Not guilty) Not Guilty
Date of filing 26.11.2019
Date of decision 07.08.2025
Method of trial Summons
Final order (Conviction/Acquittal) Accused no. 1 and 2 are convicted, accused
no. 3, 4 and 5 are acquitted
Offences proved (if any) Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ;
against accused no. 1 and 2
TABLE OF INDEX
Table of Contents
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE.............................................................................................................................. 3
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE............................................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED.............................................................................................................................. 5
DEFENCE EVIDENCE....................................................................................................................................... 6
FINAL ARGUMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 7
LAW ON THE POINT....................................................................................................................................... 8
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 3-5.................................................................................................................... 10
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 1....................................................................................................................... 11
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 2....................................................................................................................... 16
FINAL DECISION.......................................................................................................................................... 18
2
CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Digitally signed
Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by DANVEER
Date:
DANVEER 2025.08.07
16:05:52
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Accused no. 1 is a private limited company, of which, accused no. 2 to accused no. 5 are the directors.
2. The version of the complainant is that the accused no. 2-5 are principal officers of the accused no. 1, they being directors. It is stated that they are personally known to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that they had sold gold ornaments valued at Rs. 11,42,600/- to the accused persons against invoice Ex.CW-1/B (OSR) which was issued by accused no. 1. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 500,000/- was transferred to the complainant for the said sale, and for the remaining amount, a cheque of Rs. 642,600/- came to be issued to the complainant from the account of accused no. 1, bearing cheque no. 004008 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, dated 13.09.2019 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'cheque-in- question'). It is stated by the complainant that they presented the said cheque-in-question for encashment, but the same got dishonoured with the remarks "Payment Stopped By Drawer". Then, the complainant claims to have served a legal notice on the accused persons calling on them to pay their liability, and that within 15 days of the receipt of the same, the accused persons failed to do so. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed for an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'NI Act').
3. When the accused entered appearance, substance of accusations was stated to them, to which they all pleaded 'not guilty'. Their plea of defence has been as follows: Digitally signed by DANVEER Date:
DANVEER 2025.08.07 16:05:58 +0530 3 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(a) Accused no. 1 represented through accused no. 2, admitted having issued the cheque to the complainant. They stated that the sale/purchase transaction of jewellery was of around Rs. 11 Lakhs, however the jewellery came to be defective and of a value between Rs. 2-2.5 lakhs only and that Rs. 5 lakhs have already been paid to the complainant, and that it why, there was no liability towards the complainant.
(b) Accused no. 2 endorsed the stand taken by accused no. 1.
(c) Accused no. 3 denied having signed the cheque and stated that the cheque-in-question bears the signatures of the accused no. 2. They denied having any knowledge of the transaction or cheque in question. They also denied having owed any liability to the complainant.
(d) Accused no. 4 denied having any knowledge of the transaction in question. They further denied having any liability towards the complainant.
(e) Accused no. 5 denied having signed the cheque and stated that the cheque-in-question bears the signatures of the accused no. 2. They denied having any knowledge of the transaction or cheque in question.
They also denied having owed any liability to the complainant.
To understand their stands, it is relevant to mention that Accused no. 1 is company. Accused no. 2-5 are directors of the company. Accused no. 4 is the wife of Accused no. 2. Accused no. 3 and 5 are sons of Accused no. 2 and 4.
Digitally signed by DANVEER Date:DANVEER 2025.08.07 16:06:04 +0530 4 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
4. The complainant became a witness for their case (as CW-1) and tendered their evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant/CW-1 relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Identification mark
1 Copy of master data of MCA Ex. CW-1/A (colly)
2 Invoice for sale of jewellery Ex. CW-1/B (OSR)
3 Cheque in question Ex. CW-1/C
4 Bank returning memo Ex. CW-1/D
5 Copy of passbook of complainant's Ex. CW-1/E (OSR)
bank account
6 Office copy of legal demand notice Ex. CW-1/F
7 Postal receipts Ex. CW-1/G (colly)
8 Tracking reports Ex. CW-1/H (colly)
9 Certificate u/Sec. 65B Indian Ex. CW-1/I
Evidence Act
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and their statement under Sec. 313 r/w Sec. 281 of the Cr.P.C (Sec. 351 r/w Sec. 316 BNSS) was recorded. As per the accused persons:
(a) Accused no. 1 was represented through Accused no. 2. They stated that the daughter in law of the complainant used to work in accused no. 1 earlier. They stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present matter and alleged that the complainant has misused the 5 Digitally signed CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan VermaDANVEER Punjab by DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07 Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
16:06:10 +0530 cheque-in-question. The issuance of cheque-in-question to the complainant was denied, but the signatures on the same were admitted.
(b) Accused no. 2 endorsed the defence taken by accused no. 1. Further, they admitted to have signed the cheque-in-question. About the invoice on record1, they stated that they had no knowledge and that the daughter in law of the complainant used to look after the work of sale purchase.
(c) Accused no. 3 admitted their directorship in accused no. 1 company, but denied having any knowledge relating to the transaction in question. They also stated that they were not involved in the same.
(d) Accused no. 4 admitted their directorship in accused no. 1 company, but denied having any knowledge relating to the transaction in question. Further, they stated that they are involved only in the design section of the company.
(e) Accused no. 5 admitted their directorship in accused no. 1 company, but denied having any knowledge relating to the transaction in question. Further, they stated that they are involved only in the production section of the company.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. The matter was then listed for defence evidence. They got examined:
(a) Sh. Kamal Singh, the then-employee of Accused no. 1 company, as DW-1.
(b) Sh. Manoj Yadav, Stock Boy/Employee of Accused no. 1 company, as DW-2. Digitally signed by DANVEER DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07 1 Ex. CW1/B (OSR) 16:06:17 +0530 6 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(c) Sh. Ashwani Sharma, the then accountant of accused no. 1 company, as DW-3.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. Ld. Counsel for Complainant submitted that all the requirements of Sec. 138 NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case and that their case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been further argued that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence and rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act, and that therefore, the accused is guilty of offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act. In particular, it was argued that:
(a) Accused no. 2 to 5 are directors of accused no.1, and hence, they and jointly and severally liable for the liability of accused no. 1 company.
(b) The liability of the accused no. 1 is proved by the invoice on record as Ex. CW-1/B (OSR).
(c) The defence has failed to prove any defence to rebut the presumptions against the accused persons.
(d) The defence has taken contradictory stands at every point and they have failed to prove any reasonable defence.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that the defence has been able to rebut the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant and raise a probable defence. In particular, they have argued that:
(a) There are no particular allegations against Accused no. 3, 4 and 5. Hence, they are liable to be acquitted.
(b) The statements of the accused persons in the plea of defence cannot be taken to be admissions. Digitally signed by DANVEER DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07 16:06:23 +0530 7 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(c) The daughter of the complainant has connived with the complainant to misuse the cheque-in-question.
(d) Defence has been able to raise the defence to the effect that the cheque was not issued for any liability, i.e., the same was not issued in pursuance to any sale transaction.
LAW ON THE POINT
9. On a reading of the provisions of Section 138 NI Act it is clear that the ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under the provision are :
(i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by them in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account, and the same must have been presented for payment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(ii) The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
(iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid; either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 30 days of the Digitally signed by DANVEER Date: DANVEER 2025.08.07 16:06:30 +0530 8 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;
If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied then the person who has drawn the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence. Reference in this context may be made, inter alia, to "Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 745]".
10.As Accused no. 2-5 are sought to be made liable on account of their connection with the Accused no. 1 company, the provisions of Sec. 141 NI Act have to be read with Sec. 138 NI Act. Section 141 NI Act reads as under:
"141. Offences by companies. --
(1)If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence:..."Digitally signed by DANVEER Date:
DANVEER 9 2025.08.07 16:06:37 +0530 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
11. The law on the point has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. [(2005) 8 SCC 89]". Some of the part relevant to the present case is as follows:
"...10... What is required is that the persons who are sought to be made criminally liable under Section 141 should be, at the time the offence was committed, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. It is only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the time of commission of an offence, who will be liable for criminal action. It follows from this that if a director of a company who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable under the provision. The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company...."
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 3-5
12.It is convenient to firstly deal with the liability of accused no. 3-5 together, as their case is at the same footing. The liability of accused no. 1 and 2 shall be dealt separately, at a later point.
13.In the complainant evidence, the case against accused no. 3-5 is based on the fact that the said persons are directors of accused no. 1 company. However, that alone is insufficient to hold that they are in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. The cheque-in-
10CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. DANVEER byDate:DANVEER Digitally signed 2025.08.07 16:06:43 +0530 question does not bear signatures of any of these accused persons. Further, no role is mentioned for these accused persons to connect them with the liability for an offence under Sec. 138 NI Act. Merely being a director in accused no. 1 company does not make the directors liable for the offence of Sec. 138 NI Act.
14.In the entire complainant evidence, the reference to the dealing and other related transactions are stated to be with either accused no. 1 or 2, and there is no evidence qua accused nos. 3-5. As already discussed, mere directorship would not make accused nos. 3-5 liable for the offence of Sec. 138 NI Act.
15.In light of the above and the clear law discussed already, accused no. 3 'Sumit Verma', accused no. 4 'Poonam Verma', accused no. 5 'Shobhit Verma', are held not-guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act.
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 116.The accused no. 1 is a company to which the gold is stated to have been sold by the complainant. The invoice Ex. CW-1/B (OSR; i.e., Original Seen and Returned) also relates to Accused no. 1 company. The said document shows a sale transaction of Rs. 11,42,600/-. As the document is 'OSR', it adheres to the rules of Chapter-V of Indian Evidence Act, 18722. Further, DW-2 (Sh. Manoj Yadav) acknowledged in their evidence3 that the said document bears the signatures of the accountant of accused no. 1 'Ashwani'. Furthermore, Sh. Ashwani Sharma, the accountant of accused company was examined as a witness for the defence, 'DW-3'. The accountant/witness admitted their signatures on the invoice (Ex. CW-1/B). Digitally signed by DANVEER DANVEER Date:
2Corresponding to Chapter-V of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 2025.08.07 16:06:51 3 Cross-examination of DW-2 Sh. Manoj Yadav, dated 03.12.2024. +0530 11 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
17.Ex. CW-1/B is clear in its terms and contents. As per the said document, a purchase invoice of Rs. 11,42,600/- is generated on behalf of accused no.1 company. Further, the complainant has presumptions in their favour and particularly, against accused no.1. In the notice framed against accused no. 1 company, through its Director Sh. Sanjiv Verma (who is himself accused no. 2), the accused no. 1 stated that they had issued the cheque-in-question to the complainant. The total sale consideration was also stated to be approx. 11 lakhs. From the plea of defence, it also appears that the cheque-in-question was issued for the remaining balance after paying off Rs. 5 Lakhs by bank transfer, out of the total purchase consideration. The only defence taken against the legal liability is that the jewellery turned out to be defective and of a value between Rs. 2-2.5 Lakhs. Then, in the statement of accused no. 1 under Sec. 313 CrPC, they stated that the daughter-in-law of the complainant was the store manager and it was stated that the accused person did not have knowledge of the alleged sale transaction of gold altogether. In this context, what has been claimed is that there existed no legally enforceable debt or other liability in the complainant against accused no. 1.
18.The law on the point of existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability is well settled. In this context, the provisions of Sec. 139 NI Act r/w Sec. 118 (a) NI Act assume importance. Sec. 139 NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that they received the cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Section 118 (a) NI Act raises a presumption that a negotiable instrument (including a cheque) has been drawn or made for consideration.
19. Both the provisions (Sec. 139 and 118 (a) NI Act) belong to the popular class of 'shall be presumed' which is clearly defined in Sec. 4 of the 12 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Digitally signed by DANVEER DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07 16:06:59 +0530 Indian Evidence Act, 18724. As per the said provision of the evidence law, the court has to mandatorily presume a fact which is stated by any law to be 'shall presumed', but the presumption is taken away if the contrary is proved. In this context, the accused may lift the presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability in either of the two ways; by shaking the case of the complainant in this respect or by leading positive defence evidence in the same regard.
20. The law on the point of standard of proof applicable for the defence is also well settled. Reference in this context may be made to the definition of 'proved' as per the evidence law5:
""proved".--A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists;"
Further reference in the context of presumptions under NI Act, may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors., 2008 (8) SCALE 680", which was relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898)". In the said judgments, it was held that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumptions by the defence is that of preponderance of probabilities. Whether in a case, the defence has been able to discharge that onus or not is a question of fact, which has to be examined on case to case basis.
Digitally signed by DANVEER DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07 16:07:05 4 Corresponding provision under Sec. 2(l) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. +0530 5 Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 2(j) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.13
CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
21.The accused no. 1 has not disputed the cheque-in-question and the signatures as found therein. Further, the complainant has brought material on record. Apart from that, there are presumptions in favour of the complainant and against accused no. 1, as explained above.
22.Given the above, it is for the accused no. 1 to prove their defence taken by them. So, the first point of examination is: Whether the accused no. 1 has been able to point out infirmities or major contradictions in the case of the complainant, and thereby, have the presumptions in favour of the complainant been rebutted ?
23.Complainant/CW-1 was cross-examined at length on behalf of all the accused persons, including accused no. 1. The complainant/CW-1 was cross-examined on multiple fronts and dimensions covering, inter-alia, the general introductory aspects, the point of their daughter in law having worked with the accused no. 1 company, the purpose of selling the gold items, the timeline and points of meeting the accused persons for the sale of gold, the payment aspects of the sale of gold, the items of gold so sold to the accused no. 1, and the subsequent meetings/talks with the accused persons. However, no major point of contradiction came out in the testimony of the complainant/CW-1. Further, nothing could be brought out to shake the case of the complainant or to prove that the liability of accused no. 1 did not exist towards the complainant. In fact, the complainant/CW-1 gave many points of particulars of the transactions made with the accused persons, which further elaborated their story. The testimony of the witness remained unshaken. Consequently, the presumptions in favour of the complainant remained unrebutted.
24.The presumptions in favour of the complainant remained unshaken from the complainant evidence. Now, what has to be examined is : Whether 14 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Digitally signed by DANVEER Date:
DANVEER 2025.08.07 16:07:12 +0530 accused no. 1 has led any positive defence evidence to rebut the presumptions and shake the case of the complainant, to create a reasonable doubt in the case of the complainant ?
25.Accused persons examined multiple witnesses. Their respective testimonies shall be examined one by one.
26.Firstly, the defence got examined DW-1 'Sh. Kamal Singh'. The said witness claimed to have worked in the accused no.1 company from 1992 to 2021 as a security guard. The witness/DW-1 denied having any personal knowledge of the transaction in question. There is nothing in the testimony of the said witness that proves or disproves any relevant fact of the present case.
27.Secondly, the defence got examined DW-2 'Sh. Manoj Yadav'. DW-2 has been a stock boy of the accused no. 1 company since 1990. The witness denied knowing the complainant herself, but stated that they knew the daughter-in-law of the complainant, i.e., Ms. Meena Nagpal. Meena Nagpal is stated to be an ex-Floor Manager of the accused no. 1 company. The witness deposed as to the duties of a floor manager. In the whole testimony of the said witness, nothing could be brought out to create a doubt in the case of the complainant.
28.Thirdly, the defence got examined DW-3 'Sh. Ashwani Sharma', an ex- accountant of accused no. 1 company. The witness admitted to have prepared Ex. CW-1/B. Further, based on the code mentioned on the invoice, the witness deposed that the same belonged to gold items. Like the other two witnesses, there is nothing in the testimony of DW-3 that could shake the case of the complainant. Digitally signed by DANVEER DANVEER Date:
2025.08.07 16:07:18 +0530 15 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
29.As discussed above, the defence did not bring anything on record to make out a reasonable doubt in the case of the complainant. The case of the complainant remained unrebutted qua accused no. 1 company.
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 230.The liability of accused no. 2 is sought to be built upon as a super- structure on the edifice of liability of accused no. 1. Much stress has been given on the accused no. 2 by the complainant, to argue that the said accused person is vicariously liable for the offence u/Sec. 138 NI Act read with Se. 141 NI Act.
31.The cheque-in-question bears the signatures of accused no. 2 as its authorised signatory. In this respect, there is a clear admission on the part of accused no. 2 in their statement under Sec. 294 CrPC (Admission/denial of documents) which runs as:
"Q1. Do you admit that the cheque Ex. CW1/C has been signed by you?
Ans. Yes..."
Further, in response to the questions while framing notice against all the accused persons, it was stated by multiple accused persons that the cheque-in-question bears the signatures of accused no. 2. Furthermore, in the statement under Sec. 313 CrPC, among others, accused no. 2 stated that the cheque-in-question bears their signatures. The statements made at the time of framing of notice or under Section 313 CrPC are not evidence, but they are secondary material, and in light of the admitted document as mentioned above, there is no doubt on the cheque in question having signatures of accused no. 2.
Digitally signed by DANVEER Date:DANVEER 2025.08.07 16:07:24 +0530 16 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
32.Apart from the above part, there are other aspects in the evidence that connect accused no. 2 with the present transaction-in-question. Accused no. 1 company has been represented by accused no. 2 only. Further, in the testimony of CW-16, following aspects appear:
"...I contacted accused Sanjeev Verma in relation to selling my jwellery... I went to the showroom with my son and daughter in law (vol. on reaching the showroom, my daughter in law got busy with her work and my son and I sat with accused Sanjeev Verma. We have known them for many years and were like family). The other accused persons were also present but were in their cabins (vol. they were not sitting with us). The meeting last day about 3-4 hours... I followed up for the payment through phone calls made to my daughter in law as she used to work there. I also used to speak directly over the phone with accused Sanjeev Verma..."
CW-1 has deposed the particular points of connect with accused no. 2.
33.The material on record suggests that the accused no. 2 was in-charge of and responsible to the accused no. 1 for the conduct of its affairs, at the time when the offence involved in the present case is alleged to have been committed. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the same was not the case.
34.Further, there is nothing on record to show that the offence was committed without the knowledge of accused no. 2 or that they had exercised due caution to prevent the commission of offence. Hence, there is no question of the application of the first proviso to Sec. 141 (1) NI Act.
Digitally signed by 6 Cross-examination of CW-1 Ms. Usha Nagpal, dated 03.09.2022. DANVEER DANVEER Date:
172025.08.07 16:07:32 CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab +0530 Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
35.Accused no. 2 has not brought anything on record to create any reasonable doubt in the case of the complainant, or to disprove their liability otherwise.
FINAL DECISION
36. In light of the above, accused nos.1 (M/s. Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Private Limited) and 2 (Sh. Sanjiv Verma) are held guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act in the present case.
37. Accused nos. 3 (Sh. Sumit Verma), 4 (Ms. Poonam Verma), 5 (Sh. Shobhit Verma) are acquitted of the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act in the present case.
38. A copy of the judgment be provided to all the parties, forthwith. The details of the office of DLSA, Central, THC be annexed separately.
39. The judgment be uploaded on the CIS portal, forthwith.
Digitally signed by DANVEER Date:DANVEER 2025.08.07 16:07:44 +0530 (Danveer) JMFC (NI Act)-04, Central, THC 07.08.2025 Note: This judgment contains 18 pages and every page has been signed by the undersigned.
18CC No.: 12824/19 Usha Nagpal vs. M/s Goverdhan Verma Punjab Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.