Delhi District Court
Cc No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 1 Of 22 on 14 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARSHAL NEGI, MM-05 (NI ACT),
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
CC No. 38522-2018
CNR No.DLSW02-038776-2018
Rajesh Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. P.C. Jain, Proprietor of Arihant Trading Company
Office at- Z-75, Loha Mandi, Naraina
New Delhi - 110028 ... Complainant
Versus
A.N. Engineering Works & Ors.
(through its partners Satdev Jain & Vinay Gupta)
R/o E-237, Sector-4, Near Ganga Toil Mandir
Bawana, New Delhi ... Accused no.1
Sh. Sat Dev Jain
Partner of A.N. Engineering Works
F-88, 1st Floor, Gali No. 41, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045 ... Accused no. 2
Sh. Vinay Gupta
Partner of A.N. Engineering Works
R/o E-237, Sector-4, Near Ganga Toil Mandir
Bawana, New Delhi ... Accused no. 3
Offence complained of : U/s 138, NI Act, 1881
Date on which the complaint : 10.02.2018
was instituted
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Pronouncement of judgment : 14.09.2022
CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 1 of 22
JUDGMENT
It would be convenient to summarize in the briefest terms the facts forming the foundation of the case in hand. It is the case of the complainant that the accused no 2 & 3 are partners of accused no 1 A N Engineering Works and on 11.03.2014 the complainant supplied iron material to the accused persons vide Book No 45, Serial No 2250 dated 11.03.2014 for total sum of Rs 8,71,654/-. That accused persons made payment of Rs 1, 20,000/- through RTGS on 07.05.2014 and Rs 4,00,000/- through RTGS on 29.05.2014 and an assurance was given to pay the remaining amount of Rs 3,51,654/-. That when the complainant demanded the remaining amount and the accused issued cheque bearing no 016546 of Rs 3,51,654/- dated 10.09.2018 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Rohini, New Delhi in part discharge of his liability. The complainant presented the cheques in his account maintained at Indian Bank, Dwarka Sector 10, New Delhi which was returned with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide bank return memo dated 12.09.2018. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 17.09.2018 upon the accused through his counsel demanding the said amount. Despite service of aforesaid notice, neither any reply was sent nor was the money repaid by the accused. Thereafter, complainant has filed the CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 2 of 22 present complaint case. The present matter was taken against only accused no 2 i.e. Sat Dev Jain only.
Material on Record The accused entered appearance on 29.07.2019. Notice under Section 251 Crpc dated 29.07.2019 was framed accordingly to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his Notice under Section 251 CRPC the accused denied that he had issued the cheque in question. He further admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature. He further stated that he did not received any legal notice. He submitted that he have no information how the cheque reached the complainant.
Initially, 3 accused were made party by the complainant i.e. Accused No 1 being A N Engineering Work, Accused No 2 being Shri Sat Dev Jain and Accused No 3 being Vinay Gupta. Accused No 3 expired and proceedings stood abated against accused No 3. Thereby, the present matter is being proceeded against Accused No 1 and Accused No 2 only.
The Complainant relied on the following documents:
a. Copy of Invoice Book No 45 Serial No 2250 dated 11.03.2014 Ex CW 1/A (OSR).
b. Account Ledger of A N Engineering Works Ex CW 1/B (OSR) CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 3 of 22 c. Original Cheque in question Ex CW 1/C d. Original returning memo Ex CW 1/D e. Copy of Legal Notice Ex CW 1/E f. Original postal receipts Ex CW 1/F (Colly) g. Original Courier Receipt Ex CW 1/G (Colly) h. Tracking Report report Ex CW 1/H (Colly) The Complainant adopted his pre-summoning evidence as his post summoning evidence on 09.01.2020 and was cross examined under Section 145(2) NI Act on 09.01.2020. In his cross examination the complainant stated that he is doing business of Iron trading. He affirmed that he have filed the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act in Tis Tazari Court having CC no.10147/2016 titled as M/s Rama Enterprises & Anr Vs. A.N. Engineering Works & Ors. in which the accused No.1 was A.N. Engineering, Vinay Gupta-accused No.2 and Satdev Jain - accused No.3. He further affirmed that the matter was settled in Mediation Centre, Tis Tazari and he have received the total settled amount as full and final. He stated that he do not know if the payment of Rs.9 lakhs was made by Vinay Gupta. He stated that he got only RTGS confirming that the payment was made by the company.
Thereafter, in between the cross examination Court allowed the following CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 4 of 22 question by the counsel for the accused the relevancy of which was decided by the Ld. Predecessor as under:
Ques. On 30.05.2016 a settlement deed was executed between the parties and duly signed by the parties in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi having CC No.2220/1/15 titled as M/s Rama Enterprises & Anr. Vs. A.N. Engineering Works & Ors in para no.1 it was stated that the settled amount of Rs.9 lakhs will be paid by Vinay Gupta on behalf of A.N. Engineering Works and the same is already Mark A. What do you have to say?
Ans. (The question is not allowed as the deponent has already said that he has no idea as to who made the payment. The accused may bring appropriate bank witness to prove as to who made the payment).
(Again the counsel for accused insisted that questions be allowed on the same, the Ld Presiding Officer has apprised the Ld counsel for accused about his remedy of appeal).
The complainant further affirmed that he have dispatched the iron products at Khasra No.26/28, Gali No.24, Libas Pur, Delhi having site No.E- 237, Sector -4, Near Ganga Tolly Mandir, Bawana New Delhi which is Ex.CW1/A. He also affirmed that he have dispatched the iron products at site No.E-237, Sector-4, Near Ganga Tolly Mandir, Bawana, New Delhi. He stated CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 5 of 22 that he do know who received the said material at site and do know whether the aforesaid site belongs to A.N. Engineering Works.
During the cross examination specific question was put to the complainant i.e. Whether the document Ex.CW1/A(OSR) is bearing signature of Sat Dev Jain at point Mark 'X'? To which the complainant answered in negative. The complainant further stated that he have received Rs.5, 20,000/- out of total amount Rs.8, 71,654/- till 29.05.2014. He denied the suggestion that he have already received the amount of the cheque which is the cheque in question. He denied the suggestion that he used to sell the goods to Vinay Gupta from the name of another company. He also denied the suggestion that Vinay Gupta used to pay him in the name of another company. He further stated that the cheque in question was given to him just 1-2 days ago before he presented the cheque. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. He further stated that he do not know if Vinay Gupta is brother in law of the accused Sat Dev Jain. He denied the suggestion that Vinay Gupta in connivance with him has misused the cheque of the accused.
He further stated that the transaction for the present case is of 2014, though, he did not give any written notice to the accused between 2014-18 but used to intimate him telephonically and verbally by meeting him. He denied the CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 6 of 22 suggestion that the accused No.2 does not owe any liability in the present case and the liability is only of Vinay Gupta. He denied the suggestion that Vinay Gupta has misused the cheque in question. He further stated that he have not received an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from Vinay Gupta regarding the cheque in question. He stated that he do not know if Vinay Gupta is in Coma from last 8 months. He stated that he have not visited the site where the goods were to be delivered. He denied the suggestion that he sent the goods only to Vinay Gupta. He voluntarily stated that he sent the goods on promise of accused Sat Dev.
He stated that he is well aware of the contents of affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and present complaint. He stated that he do not know Vinay Gupta. He denied the suggestion that accused Sat Dev has nothing to do with the cheque in question.
The complainant closed his evidence on 09.01.2020.
Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Crpc was recorded on 08.04.2021 and all the incriminating evidences were put to him. In his statement the accused stated that he was not serving as a partner in accused no 1 company. That he have no relation with respect to the company or the address. That no material whatsoever was supplied to him or received by him as have been alleged in the present complaint. He further stated that he do not know anything about the said payment and did not make any such payment. CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 7 of 22
He also stated that the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant. That the cheque was issued to Arihant Trading Co. That the cheque book was in possession of Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta and it was Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta who took the cheque from him. That he do not have any liability and he was never part of the transaction in question. He affirmed that the address in the legal notice is his correct address.
He then stated that there was another case which was filed earlier by the complainant against him and Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta in and around 2015 which was settled between them in the year 2016 before Mediation Centre. That he came to know that his cheques have been misused in the earlier case and the matter was settled wherein Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta paid full and final payment of Rs.9 lakhs with respect to the case filed in the year 2015 in Tis Hazari Courts. That Full and final payment was made in that case and nothing remained between the parties. That no fresh cheque has been issued after the mediation agreement entered into in that case. That he do not know how the cheques in question came in to possession of the complainant since Mr Vinay Kumar Gupta is in Coma since last 2 years.
The accused opted to lead his defence evidence and examined himself as DW 1 and Bank official as DW 2.
CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 8 of 22
In his examination as DW 1 on 23.11.2021 he stated that the complainant had filed a case against him in the year 2016 in Tis Hazari Courts by the name of Rama Enterprises Vs. A N Engineering Works and in that case he was accused No.2 and one Vinay Kumar Gupta was accused No.1. That Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta is his real brother in law. That the cheque book of which the earlier cheque against which the above said case was filed used to remain in possession of Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta. That, thereafter, a mediation settlement dated 30.05.2016 was arrived with respect to above said case which has been marked as Ex.DW1/1(The Court made an observation that Ex DW 1/1 is a photocopy, however, the document was relied upon by both parties and was also not objected by counsel for the complainant and thus was read into evidence). That the main dispute was between Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta and complainant in that case and his cheque was misused in that case.
He further stated that in that mediation settlement the matter was full and finally settled for an amount of Rs.9 lakhs. That it was also mentioned in that settlement that the amount should be paid by Mr. Vinay Gupta on behalf of A N Engineering and not by him. That the whole payment of Rs.9 lakhs has already been made by Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta through his bank account.
That the final installment of the above said amount was made by Vinay CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 9 of 22 Gupta on 17.08.2018. That since then he have no contact with the complainant and complainant was in contact with Vinay Kumar Gupta only. That with respect to the above said case despite making the last payment on 17.08.2018 the complainant got an NBW issued against him. That, thereafter, he appeared before the court and later the complainant moved an application for withdrawal by stating himself that the last complete payment has been made by the accused on 17.08.2018. That the order dated 28.08.2019 was marked as Ex.DW1/2.
He further stated that he came to know about the present case only when BW were issued against him. That he have no knowledge how the cheque in question came in to possession of the complainant. He further stated that he asked Vinay Kumar Gupta in an around 2016 at the time when he came to know about misuse of the cheque. That Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta returned the cheque book that time only. He also stated that he is not aware of any cheque which was issued prior to 2016 from his cheque book since it was in possession of Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta. That he never had any transaction with the complainant neither prior to 2016 or after 2016. That he never issued the cheque in question. That he do not have any office address or site by the name of A N Engineering as being mentioned in the complaint. That he is also not associated with the address of A N Engineering in any manner whatsoever.
CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 10 of 22
DW 1 i.e. the accused was then cross examined on 25.02.2022. In his cross examination he stated that he have brought certified copy of the order dated 08.03.2016 in CC No.2220/1 and same was been marked as Ex.DW1/3. The counsel for the complainant then confronted Ex.CW1/B to the accused and the accused stated that the signature at point 'A' on the document belongs to him. That this was the blank document when his signatures were taken and this document was given to one Vinay Gupta. He also stated that the writing at point 'X' belongs to him and the stamp is of company. That he have not received any summons of this case. That he have appeared only when BW were issued against him and then only documents of this case were given to him. That he have not filed any complaint regarding the misuse of documents Ex.CW1/B. He voluntarily stated that Mr. Vinay Gupta was in coma and he was not able to verify who has mis-used this document, therefore he have not filed any complaint.
He denied the suggestion that he have not filed any complaint regarding the misused of document Ex.CW1/B since he had issued the document.
He affirmed that he is the proprietor of A N Engineering Works. He voluntarily stated that A N Engineering may be multiple company as it is not registered. He further stated that the official address of A N Engineering works CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 11 of 22 of which he is the proprietor is his residential address i.e. F-88, Street No.41, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. He further denied the suggestion that Arihant Trading Company had supplied goods worth Rs.8, 71,654/- to him. He denied the suggestion that A N Engineering had transferred Rs.1, 20,000/- on 07.05.2014 and Rs.4 lakhs on 29.05.2014 through RTGS. He voluntarily stated that he do not know which A N Engineering company the counsel of the complainant is mentioning as there may be multiple companies by the same name. He affirmed the suggestion that in his examination in chief he have mentioned that a case was filed against him in the year 2016 in Tis Hazari Courts was filed by Rama Enterprise. He also stated that he is not aware that the complainant is not the proprietor of Rama Enterprise. He voluntarily stated that the case titled as Rama Enterprise Vs. A N Engineering Works as mentioned by him in my examination was contested by the complainant.
He stated that the cheque amount is matter of record. That the cheque in question was not issued for any liability. That the cheque in question was issued to Vinay Gupta for account/entry purposes. He affirmed that the cheque was issued in the name of Arihant Company. He voluntarily stated that the cheque in question was issued prior to 2016 and prior to the dispute of the case of the year 2016 in Tis Hazari Courts by the name of Rama Enterprise Vs. A N Engineering CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 12 of 22 works.
He stated that he know the complainant since childhood. He denied the suggestion that the reason for mentioning the specific amount in the cheque is that the same was due to the complainant. He affirmed the suggestion that the present cheque in question has no connection with the case filed earlier in Tis Hazari Courts. He voluntarily stated that the settlement which has been arrived in the case pending in the Tis Hazari Court incorporated full and final settlement of all the cheques which were in dispute.
He affirmed that the details of the cheques were not mentioned in the settlement arrived in the Tis Hazari Courts by the name of Rama Enterprise Vs. A N Engineering Works. He affirmed that he have not filed any complaint regarding misusing of present cheque in question. He voluntarily stated that the cheque was issued to Vinay Gupta and he was in coma and he was not aware who have misused the cheque. That Mr. Vinay Gupta was in coma from May 2018 and he expired in 2021.
DW 2 i.e. the Bank official was then examined in chief on 29.04.2022 and stated that he have brought the transaction details of the account no 35828280363 from 12.07.2016 to 17.08.2018 which is Exhibited as DW 2/2. The complainant was given opportunity to cross examine DW 2 which he did CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 13 of 22 not carried.
The accused then closed his DE on 29.04.2022.
Final Arguments were heard in detail.
Analysis & Conclusion The only defence which has been raised by the accused is that the case pertains to an invoice transactions dated 11.03.2014 which is Ex CW1/A and the cheque in question is of dated 10.09.2018. The counsel of the accused then submitted that the period of limitation expired on 11.03.2017 and the present case is a case of a time barred debt.
The counsel for the complainant stated that with respect to the cheque amount of Rs 3,51,654/-, it was assured by the accused that he will pay this remaining amount after full and final payment of mediation order dated 30.05.2016 being a settlement arrived between the same parties with respect to a separate transaction.
Since the accused has raised the issue of time barred debt, the judicial scrutiny is the present matter is centered around to affirm whether the present transaction is a time barred debt, for if the same is answered in an affirmative CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 14 of 22 then discussion on other essentials of Section 138 NI Act becomes redundant and the accused would be entitled to the benefit of acquittal.
Before analyzing the same in the context of facts of the present case it is imperative to lay down the settled law pertaining to time barred debt vis-à-vis Section 138 NI Act.
The Supreme Court in Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia 2001 CriLJ 24 observed thus:
6. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent who issued the cheque in question in discharge of a time barred debt is liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case, the complainant had admitted that the loan was advanced to the accused in January, 1988 and the cheque was issued in February, 1991. Thus, by the time the cheque was issued, the debt was barred by limitation since there was no valid acknowledgement of the liability within the period of limitation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the promise made by the accused to repay the time barred debt would come within the purview of Section 25(3) of the CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 15 of 22 Indian Contract Act. No doubt, the promise to pay a time barred cheque (debt) is valid and enforceable, if it is made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith. But, it is clear from Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that in order to attract the penal provisions in the bouncing of a cheque in Chapter XVII, it is essential that the dishonoured cheque should have been issued in discharge, wholly or in part, or any debt or other liability of the drawer to the payee. The explanation to Section 138 defines the expression debt or other liability as a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
7. Thus, Section 138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, admittedly, the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a time barred debt. It cannot be said that a time barred debt is a legally enforceable debt. In this connection, it is also relevant to note the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Girdhari Lal Rathi v. P.T.V. Ramanujachari 1997 (2) Crimes
658. It has been held in that case that if a cheque is issued for a time barred debt and it is dishonoured, the accused cannot be CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 16 of 22 convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act simply on the ground that the debt was not legally recoverable.
In M/s. Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Vinnay Aggarwal, Crl.M.C.1682/2008 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 6167/2008 & 12878/2008, DoD 24.04.2009, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sasseriyil Joseph (supra), it has been observed that, cheques issued for a time-barred debt would not fall within the definition of 'legally enforceable debt', which is the essential requirement for a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act; the extended meaning of debt or liability has been explained in the Explanation to the Section which means a legally enforceable debt or liability.
It is also profitable to refer of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which deals with acknowledgement and explanation of limitation and reads as under:-
"Section 18 - Effect of acknowledgment in writing( limitation act) (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 17 of 22 property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set- off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right;
(b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right. CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 18 of 22
Useful reference may also be made to the case titled Prajan Kumar Jain v. Ravi Malhotra, 2009 SCC Online Del 3368, wherein it has been held that, an acknowledgment to be encompassed within the ambit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act has to be an acknowledgment in writing as also within the prescribed period of limitation. These are the twin requirements which have to be fulfilled in order to be a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"10....This acknowledgment even as per the complaint was much after the statutory period of three years which is the prescribed period of limitation for the recovery of an outstanding amount. An acknowledgment to be encompassed within the ambit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act has to be an acknowledgment in writing as also within the prescribed period of limitation. These are the twin requirements which have to be fulfilled in order to be a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act which is admittedly not so in the instant case. In this case this acknowledgment to pay the balance amount was in terms of the settlement dated 26.1.2005 i.e. much after the statutory period of CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 19 of 22 three years; it also does not speak of the acknowledgement being in writing. It was thus not a valid acknowledgment."
Perusal of the aforesaid legal position shows that for computing the limitation of the liability beyond a period of three years, the acknowledgment, if any, must be there before period of limitation is over. Thus, the twin test i.e. the acknowledgment has to be in writing and such acknowledgment is to be before the period of limitation is over, has to be satisfied in order to take benefit of Section 18 Limitation Act. In the present matter, it is not the case of the complainant that the accused has given any written acknowledgment in writing.
The facts which has been alleged by the complainant is that he supplied iron materials to the accused persons through invoice no 2250 Book No 45 dated 11.03.2014 for a total sum of Rs 8, 71,654/- Ex CW1/A. That he received a total of Rs 5, 20,000/- only by 07.05.2014 and was assured by the accused persons that the remaining amount of Rs 3, 51,654/- will be paid at the earliest. It is his case that the cheque in question dated 10.09.2018 was issued by the accused in furtherance of the same. During cross examination of the complainant dated 09.01.2020 it has come on record that the cheque in question was given to the complainant just 1-2 days ago before the presentation of the cheque.
Therefore, the following facts are indisputable:
CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 20 of 22
I. The transaction is of 11.03.2014 being the date of the invoice Ex CW1/A relied on by the complainant, II. The cheque in question was dated 10.09.2018, and III. The cheque in question was given to the complainant just 1-2 days ago before the presentation of the cheque.
Thus, the legally enforceable debt arose on 11.04.2014 when the invoice was raised and payment became due. The period of limitation in the facts of the present case started to run on the date of transaction 11.03.2014 and the period of limitation was slated to expire on 11.03.2017. Thus, the debt became time barred on 12.03.2017. Further, the cross examination of the complainant categorically establishes that the cheque in question was given to him just 1-2 days prior to its presentation which is between 08.09.2018 to 10.09.2018. Thus, the cheque was paid after three years of the debt having become time barred. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused persons gave any written acknowledgment to him regarding the alleged debt. Although it is the case of the complainant that the accused persons did assured them that they will make the remaining payment i.e. being the cheque amount at the earliest. However, at most it remained only a verbal assurance. Therefore, in absence of any written acknowledgment no benefit of Section 18 Limitation Act could be given to the complainant.
CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 21 of 22
In view of the above, the debt itself became barred by limitation after year 2017. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable. Since the initial question i.e. whether the present transaction is a time barred debt is answered in affirmative, the discussion on the other aspects of the offence under Section 138 NI Act becomes redundant.
Accordingly, the accused Sat Dev Jain S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh Jain is acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the Act. Digitally signed
This Judgment contains 22 pages. by HARSHAL
Every Page of this Judgment has been signed by me. HARSHAL NEGI
NEGI Date:
2022.09.17
10:10:28 +0530
Announced in the open court
on this day of 14th September, 2022
(HARSHAL NEGI)
MM(NI Act)-05/South-West District
Dwarka Courts/New Delhi
14.09.2022
CC No. 38522/2018 Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs A.N. Engineering Works Page 22 of 22