Delhi District Court
Sh. Ranjan Kumar ............... ... vs Sh. Mahinder Pal ................. ... on 24 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH BABRU BHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, ROOM NO. 137,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
SH. RANJAN KUMAR ............... Complainant
S/o Sh. Basudeo Prasad,
R/o Qtr. No. 1196, MS Flat,
Timarpur, Delhi.
VERSUS
SH. MAHINDER PAL ................. Accused
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o C253, Millenium Apartment,
Delhi
Also At SH. MAHINDER PAL, AAO, LIC of India,
C/o Internal Audit Department,
Laxmi Insurance Building, 2/2, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi 2
CC No. 817/1
PS Timarpur
U/s :138 Negotiable Instrument Act
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R179262012
2. Date of commission of offence: 04.04.2012
3. Date of Institution : 20.04.2012
4. Date when judgment : 24.09.2015
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 24.09.2015
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 138 NI Act
and proved
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial
8. Final Judgment : Accused is convicted for the
offence U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act
CC No. 817/1
PS- Timarpur
Ranjan Kumar Vs. Mahinder Pal page 1/5
JUDGMENT
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. The present complaint has been filed by Ranjan Kumar (hereinafter referred as complainant) against Mahinder Pal (hereinafter referred as accused) alleging the facts that accused had availed a loan of Rs. 17 lacs from the complainant and in discharge of his partial liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 28790 dated 05.12.2010 for Rs. 14.50 lacs drawn on Allahabad Bank (Ex. CW1/1). This cheque was presented for encashment and same was dishonored for the reasons and remarks "funds insufficient" vide bank memo dated 20.01.2012. At request, of the accused, complainant again presented the cheque on 22.02.2012 but it was returned with the same remarks (Both the return memos are Ex. CW1/2 Colly). When the complainant received the intimation of dishonor, a legal demand notice (Ex. CW1/3) dated 06.03.2012 was issued to the accused via registered post (Ex. CW1/4). It is alleged that despite service of the legal notice, payment was not made good within the statutory period. Hence, this complaint.
2. Accused was summoned and on his appearance, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served on 08.03.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the complainants evidence, complainant examined himself as a sole witness. He filed his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex CW1/A. Besides the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the complainant has relied upon the calculation (Ex. CW1/B to Ex. CW1/H).
During cross examination, complainant stated that he was working in LIC as Higher Grade Assistant and getting salary of approximately Rs. 43,000/. He further stated that he had given Rs. 17 lacs to the accused between 20052007. The witness failed to tell the dates on which the CC No. 817/1 PS- Timarpur Ranjan Kumar Vs. Mahinder Pal page 2/5 money was advanced. He also failed to tell how much money was given in cash and how much money was given through cheques. He further stated that he had taken approximately Rs. 13 lacs from his father and remaining balance amount was arranged from his own income. He further stated that the loan advanced to the accused was not mentioned in his income tax returns. He denied the suggestion that the documents Ex. CW1/3 was signed in blank. He also denied the suggestion that the cheques in question were obtained from the accused in 2005.
4. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused under the mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C on 09.03.2015 wherein the accused has stated that he never availed any loan of Rs. 17 lacs from the complainant. He also explained that the cheque in question was issued in 2005, when he demanded the cheque from the complainant, complainant stated that same was misplaced. Accused has also stated that thereafter he issued another cheque in lieu of that cheque. The cheque in question was allegedly issued for payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs only. Accused also lead evidence in his defence.
5. During defence evidence, accused entered the witness box as DW1. In his statement, he narrated that the cheque in question was issued to the complainant on 01.04.2005. The complainant requested to issue another cheque as he allegedly lost the cheque in question and on his request, the accused issued one more cheque to the complainant. The complainant again took two more cheques in 2009. The money borrowed from the complainant was allegedly repaid by the accused. Accused has further stated that complainant got singed a blank stamp paper through him in 2009. The receipt of legal demand notice is admitted by the accused.
During cross examination, accused admitted that both witnesses of CC No. 817/1 PS- Timarpur Ranjan Kumar Vs. Mahinder Pal page 3/5 the agreement dated 19.01.2009 were working with him in the same office. He has further stated that he came to know about the agreement after receiving of notice of the cheque bounce. He further stated that no complaint was made to the police or other authorities. No complaint was made to the Branch in which complainant was working. He denied the suggestion that he had started a financial company in the name and style of Rai Finance in the name of his wife. He also denied the suggestion that cheque in question was issued in discharge of his liability.
6. Ld counsels appearing for both the parties have advanced their arguments for assistance of this Court. The arguments are heard.
7. The documents Ex. CW1/3 is the agreement cum undertaking. This agreement has been executed on stamp paper wherein the accused has admitted of having received amount of Rs. 17 lacs from the complainant. The signatures on this document are not denied by the accused. During cross examination, accused has stated that he came to know about his signatures in the agreement Ex. CW1/3 after receiving the notice of the cheque bounce. He has further stated that he did not made any complaint to the police or any authority regarding this fact. No complaint was made to the Branch Manager off the office where he was working.
During statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has explained that complainant had got singed the some blank stamp paper in 2009.
Now, firstly, accused has not mentioned any reason as to why did he signed blank stamp paper at the behest of the complainant. Further, when he came to know that the complainant had filed a false case against him by misusing this document, why he did not approach the police or any other authority. If any wrong is committed to someone, any ordinary prudent person would make a complaint to some appropriate authority but no such CC No. 817/1 PS- Timarpur Ranjan Kumar Vs. Mahinder Pal page 4/5 steps were taken by the complainant. The conduct of the complainant belies his plea that he had signed some blank stamp papers at the behest of the complainant in 2009 and same was misused by him. In my considered opinion, the mere statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C is not sufficientl to doubt the genuineness of document Ex. CW1/3. The loan in question has been proved.
8. The signatures on the impugned cheque Ex. CW1/1 are not denied by the accused. The presumption U/s 118 and 139 are in favour of the complainant. The burden to rebutt these presumptions was on the accused. However, nothing material having force to rebutt the presumptions surfaced during cross examination of the complainant. The statement of the accused hat the cheque was issued in 2005 also remained uncorroborated. The mere statement is not sufficient to rebutt the statutory presumptions. Thus, these presumptions gone unrebutted. The Court has to draw the presumption that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable liability.
9. The dishonor of the cheque is sufficiently established by the return memos (Ex. CW1/2 colly).
10. The receipt of legal demand notice (Ex. CW1/3) is not dispute and same has also been admitted by the accused.
11. The above discussions is concluded with the findings that the complainant has successfully proved all the ingredients of offence U/s 138 NI Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Mahinder Pal is convicted accordingly. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (BABRU BHAN)
COURT ON 24.09.2015 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. 817/1
PS- Timarpur
Ranjan Kumar Vs. Mahinder Pal page 5/5