Delhi District Court
Present Revision Is Against Order Dt. ... vs Unknown on 28 July, 2008
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG: ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: KKD: DELHI
CR(A) No. 257/07
CC No. 968/07
PS. Krishna Nagar
U/s. 138 NI Act
Sh. Raman Kumar Mehta
S/o. Sh. Ram Rattan
R/o. 109/3/6-C, West Azad Nagar,
Near Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
Versus
Sh. Nand Kishore Mehta
S/o. Sh. Chaman Lal Mehta
R/o. H.No. 9, Radhey Puri,
Near Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
Date of Institution: 12/12/07
Date of final arguments: 28/07/08
Date of decision: 28/07/08
ORDER:
1. Present revision is against order dt. 14/11/07 passed by Ld. MM, Sh. Naresh Kumar in above complaint vide which, he convicted the revisionist U/s. 138 NI Act and vide order dt. 16/11/07 revisionist/convict was sentenced to SI for 3 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant and in dafault thereof to further undergo SI for 15 days.
2. Notice of revision was given to respondent Nand Kishore, who filed his reply supporting the Judgment and order on sentence and it has been added therein that pleas taken by the revisionist in the present appeal cannot be read in evidence as no such ground was taken by him before the trial court nor any witness was examined by him to support his claim. It has further been submitted that convict does not deserve any leniency in sentence as despite compromise on record, he is coming out with false grounds.
3. In his appeal the grounds taken by revisionist interalia are that he is a victim of innocence as it was complainant, who had got the account of revisionist opened by introducing him and by depositing Rs. 2,500/- by himself (Complainant) and revisionist had given the entire cheque book to the complainant; that revisionist went unrepresented due to his poverty and later on he had availed the services of legal aid counsel; that complainant prepared forged pronote dt. 15/03/05 to make his case more effective whereas accused had never signed any pronote or taken any loan from the complainant; that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is also scribbled on cheque by complainant himself and not by the accused; that taking advantage of cheque book of accused, complainant has filed one more case against the accused in the same manner; that case is an afterthought filed in 2007 whereas loan has been shown in the year 2005.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and gone through the trial court record and documents placed in this case. In the trial court complainant has tendered his affidavit in his examination in chief and supported his complaint. He has been cross-examined by legal aid Counsel Sh. S.K.Sharma, wherein the suggestion to the effect that accused had not taken any money from complainant has categorically been denied by complainant. Complainant also denies that he was doing the business of money lending. Complainant examined himself and two bank officials in support of his case. After closure of complainant evidence when accused was confronted with incriminating evidence on record U/s. 281 Cr.P.C, he pleaded innocence by claiming that he had not given the cheque to the complainant but had given the cheque to Manoj Kumar proprietor of Ms. Goyal Shoe Company from whom he had taken loan of Rs. 15,000/- and as per him Manoj Kumar refused to return the cheque to him even after receiving the amount of cheque.
5. In view of the evidence on record there is no scope for any relief for the revisionist as he has taken contradictory plea before the trial court and before the revisional court whereas he has admitted having given cheque to one Manoj Kumar, in his statement U/s. 281 Cr.P.C, he has taken the plea before this court that the entire cheque book was given by him to the complainant, which is an afterthought and cannot be believed. From the bare perusal of the cheque Ex.CW1/B and signature put by accused in notice dt. 28/05/07 and his statement recorded U/s. 281 Cr.P.C, there is similarity in the signatures, so the latter plea by the accused in this court that he has not signed the cheque and that it was in the custody of complainant who fabricated the same, is not believable. Cheque is dt. 29/08/05 and complaint was filed also on 25/10/05. Pronote Ex.PW1/A also bears signature of revisionist/accused on revenue stamp, which is similar to one appearing on cheque and in court proceedings, so documents Ex.PW1/A and ExCW1/B do not appear to be fabricated. Despite opportunity accused has not led any evidence in his defence to prove that he had given the cheque to one Manoj Kumar and that he had paid the outstanding amount thereagainst to him. No suggestion in cross- examination has been given in this regard to complainant Nand Kishore Mehta. How the cheque given to Manoj Kumar, could come in the hand of Nand Kishore Mehta, was not clarified by accused by producing Manoj Kumar. Moreover, accused has not claimed anywhere in the trial court record that he had given blank cheque to Manoj Kumar, so all these pleas appear to be afterthought.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dt. 14/11/07. As regards the sentence awarded to the convict, already a lenient view has been taken by the Ld. MM and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
7. With these observations appeal is dismissed. Convict be taken into custody to serve the sentence. Warrant be prepared accordingly. Copy of order with trial court record be sent back to the trial court. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (REENA SINGH NAG) court on 28/07/08 ASJ, KKD, DELHI