Delhi District Court
Sh Om Prakash vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 October, 2007
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.K. BANSAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No. 78/07
Sh Om Prakash
s/o late Shri Chander Sain
r/o village Faridpur,
Tehsil & District Faridabad
Haryana
............ Revisionist.
VERSUS
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director/Directors/Partner
Office at R-13, 2nd Floor, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi -110048
Also at: 7th Floor Eros Corporate Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019
3. Shri Sumit Mittal
Partner/Authorized Signatory/Director/
Managing Director of M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
4. Shri Madhur Mittal
Partner/Director/Managing Director of
M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
5. Shri Rajiv Aggarwal
Manager/Authorized Representative of
M/s Triveni Infrastructure
Development Co. Ltd.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 at:- R-13, 2nd Floor,
Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi -110048
Also at: 7th Floor Eros Corporate Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019
-: 2 :-
........... Respondents.
ORDER
The present revision petition is preferred against the order dated passed by the Ld M.M whereby the respondents herein were convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on their plea of guilt and sentenced them to Imprisonment till rising of the court and the amount of cheque be paid as compensation by the convicts and further to pay a compensation of Rs 5,000/- to the complainant.
2. IN brief the case of the revisionist is that he was having a share in the agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Faridpur which was sold to M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd for a total consideration of Rs 94,50,000/- as full and final consideration amount. The sale deed was got executed in the office of sub Registrar, Faridabad. The entire amount was not paid at the time of registration. For the remaining amount the cheque No. 178058 dated 24.07.2006 worth Rs 22,05,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Greater Kailash was given to the revisionist. The cheque was presented for encashment and the same bounced. Notice was given but the amount was not paid and hence the complaint was filed. Summons were issued. Accused persons appeared and they -: 3 :- pleaded guilty. On their plea of guilt Ld Trial court convicted them and sentenced them. The order of sentence is challenged by the complainant on the ground that the sentence awarded by the Ld Trial court is not sufficient and it be enhanced.
3. Notice of the revision was given to the respondent. Trial court record was also requisitioned. I have heard the Ld counsel for the revisionist, Ld counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
4. Ld counsel submitted that the accused persons had pleaded guilty but they did not deserve any leniency as they have not paid the amount with dishonest and malafide intention. Ld Trial court had erred in not passing any order against accused no. 1 i.e M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. The leniency should have been shown to a person who shows any respect to the judicial system but they have no respect for the judicial system and prayed that they be sentenced appropriately.
5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I found that it is a simple case where a cheque which was issued dishonoured. Accused persons were summoned. Notice was given to them to which they pleaded guilty. The court accepted their plea of guilt as the same was voluntary. I agree -: 4 :- with the Ld counsel for the revisionist on the point that the Ld Trial court should have convicted respondent no. 2 M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. which has not been done. The record shows that the Directors of the company had been convicted and sentenced and by implication the company also stands convicted. The company cannot be made to suffer the sentence but the Ld Trial court should have directed the company to pay the compensation to the complainant/revisionist. Therefore, it is ordered that the respondent no. 2 shall pay the compensation to the revisionist i.e the cheque amount with 8 % interest on the same from 24.07.2006 (the date of cheque) till date i.e 23.10.2007. The calculation is to be made by the Ld Trial court and all the respondents no. 2-5 will be jointly and severely liable to make the payment of this amount to the revisionist. In case of default in making the payment, the Ld M.M would be at liberty to issue Attachment warrant against the company and other respondents to realize the said amount. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents pleaded guilty on the very first day, I am no inclined to enhance the sentence imposed by the Ld Trial court.
6. In view of the above discussion the compensation is enhanced in terms as stated above. The order of the Ld Trial court is modified accordingly. Revision petition is partly allowed. Trial court record along with the copy of this order be sent back. -: 5 :- File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( V.K. BANSAL )
dated: 23.10.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI