Delhi District Court
By Way Of The Present Judgment vs State (Nct Of Delhi) 2008(1)Jcc (Ni) 15) on 11 May, 2012
CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 1 of Pages 20
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, KKD, EAST, NEW DELHI
Complaint No. 7208/10
Unique ID No. 02402R0109782009
PS. Vivek Vihar
Dr. Krishna Garg
W/o Dr. D.P. Garg
R/o D108, Vivek ViharI,
Delhi95 ......... Complainant.
Versus
Sh. Mukesh Bhatia,
S/o Late Sh. Baldev Rai Bhatia,
R/o 43334, Lane No.14,
Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi5 ......... Accused.
COMPLAINT U/s 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
Offence complained of : U/s 138 N.I. Act
Date of commission of offence : 24.03.2009
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Complaint filed on : 08.04.2009
Final Arguments heard & Concluded on : 11.05.2012
Date of decision of the case : 11.05.2012
Final order : Conviction
CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 2 of Pages 20
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. By way of the present judgment, this court shall decide the complaint case U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (as amended up to date) filed by the complainant Dr. Krishna Garg, against the accused Mukesh Bhatia.
2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of the present case are that complainant was working as professor of Anatomy at Shree Bankey Bihari Dental College & Research Centre, Masuri, Dist. Ghaziabad (U.P) and had family & friendly relations with the accused as son of the accused was student of the complainant. In the month of May 2007, the accused along with his son Ankush came to the complainant to express their thanks regarding the educational assistance which accused's son got from the complainant. During their visit, the accused approached the complainant to invest her money for purchasing properties and as per the advise of the accused, the complainant handedover 03 cheques amounting to Rs.4,75,000/ and also made a cash payment of Rs.50,000/ to the accused against the receipt dated 22.06.2007. Thereafter the accused kept delaying handing over possession of the dreamt property to the complainant by saying that there is some problem in UP Government, then the complainant asked the accused to return her money, on that, the accused had given Rs.50,000/ vide cheque no.504869 on 11.03.2008 thereafter he also paid Rs. 50,000/ vide cheque no.098552 dated 29.08.2008 and after CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 3 of Pages 20 that balance amount due upon the accused towards the complainant was Rs.4,25,000/. Thereafter the accused issued two cheques bearing no. 091569 dated 29.08.2008 & no.091570 dated 29.09.2008 for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ each but on presentation the said cheques were returned back dishonored with the remark "INSUFFICIENT FUND" vide dishonour memos dated 22.01.2009. Thereafter on further persuasion the accused again requested the complainant to deposit the said two cheques along with another newly issued cheque no.081007 dated 09.02.2009 for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ for encashment, but on presentation again all three cheques were returned back dishonored with the remark "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" vide dishonor memos dated 12.02.2009. Thereafter a legal notice dated 07.03.2009 was sent to the accused on 07.03.2009 by way of regd AD and UPC. It is further alleged that despite service of legal notice accused has not paid any thing to the complainant till the filling of the case.
3. After the complaint was filed, the complainant led the pre summoning evidence by way of an affidavit and after hearing the counsel for the complainant and considering the entire material and documents on record, summons were issued against the accused vide order dated 01.05.2009 for the offence U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. On appearance of the accused a separate notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. dated 03.03.2010 was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 4 of Pages 20 trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint on oath before this court and filed an affidavit in evidence. She also exhibited bank clearance certificate as Ex.CW1/A, receipts against the 03 cheques amounting to Rs.4,75,000/ and cash payment of Rs.50,000/ as Ex. CW1/B, cheque returning memos dated 21.01.2009 as Ex. CW1/C & Ex. CW1/D, original cheques bearing No.091569 as Ex. CW1/E, bearing no. 091570 as Ex. CW1/F & bearing no. 081007 as Ex. CW1/G. the cheque returning memos dated 12.02.2009 are Ex. CW1/H to Ex. CW1/J, the legal notice of demand dated 17.03.2009 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/K, UPC is Ex. CW1/N, the registered AD is Ex. CW1/L, the original receipts of registered post is Ex. CW1/M. Sh. Phool Singh, Public Relation Inspector, Shahdara Post Office was examined as CW2, he Exhibited documents Ex. CW2/X & Ex. CW2/Y, Sh. Surender Kumar Special Assistant at Allahabad bank, was examined as CW3, he exhibited account statement of the accused as Ex. CW3/A, Sh. K.K. Arora, Single window operator, State bank of Bikaner & Jaipur was examined as CW4, he exhibited account statement of the complainant as Ex. CW4/A accounts statement further the statement of account of account no. 51017252951 for the period from 29.05.2007 to 30.06.2007 was exhibited as Ex.CW4/B. No other witness was CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 5 of Pages 20 examined and complainant evidence was closed at request.
5. After that on 23.05.2011 the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating evidence along with exhibited documents were put to the accused. In his statement accused stated that infact complainant had approached him to purchase some plot and after meeting at Cannought Place he offered two plots to her out of which she agreed on the plot no. M71, Sector5, Bawana Industrial Area, the total sale price was agreed to be Rs.47,50,000/ out of which Rs.5,25,000/ were given by the complainant as bayana. It is further submitted by the accused that after receiving the bayana accused asked the complainant to complete the sale transaction but she requested for some time and also requested the accused to give her some money as her husband was very ill. On that accused gave her two cheques of Rs.50,000/ each which were duly encashed by her. It is further submitted by the accused that other two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/ were given by him to the complainant as security at the time of giving bayana along with one another cheque of Rs.1,00,000/. It is submitted by the accused that these cheuqes were given as security only and he is not liable to pay in respect of the same as the bayana amount has been forfeited by him as per custom of trade, he further stated that he is still ready to sell the said plot to the complainant on agreed price. It is alleged by him that complainant her self had back out from the deal thus the bayana CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 6 of Pages 20 amount has been impounded. Thereafter the case was fixed for Defence evidence. The accused examined himself as DW1 and he also examined one Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma as DW2. No other witness was examined and Defence Evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard Ld. counsels and perused the entire record of the case file and the evidence on record. Both the counsel have referred to a number of cases, I have discussed them at the relevant place.
7. Before proceeding further let us go through the relevant provisions of law. The main ingredient of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are as follows:
(a) The accused issued a cheque on an account maintained by him with a bank.
(b) The said cheque has been issued in discharge of any legal debt or other liability.
(c) The cheque has been presented to the bank within the period of six months from the date of the cheque or within the period of its validity.
(d) When the aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned unpaid/ dishonoured.
(e) The Payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque.
(f) The Drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 7 of Pages 20 within 15 days of the receipt of the aforesaid legal notice of demand.
If the aforesaid ingredients are satisfied then the drawer of the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. Now let us deal with the each ingredient of the section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to see whether the case against the accused has been proved or not.
9. WHETHER THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED OR NOT:
CW1 has stated in his examine in chief that cheques in question were issued by the accused. Accused never denied the execution and issuance of the cheques in favour of the complainant but it was submitted by him that these cheques were issued as security cheque. Though in the present matter accused had not stated that the cheques in question were given in blank condition, however he have submitted that the same were given as security thus its relevant here to discuss the legal position in respect to the blank signed cheques which is as under:
In Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. Swaraj Pal 149 (2008) DLT 682 it was held by Delhi High Court that "by putting the amount and the name of payee there is no material alteration on the cheque U/s 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact there is no alteration but only adding the amount and the date.
It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 8 of Pages 20 there is no rule of banking business that the name of the payee as well as the amount should be written by the drawer himself. No law provides that in case of cheques the entire body has to be written by the drawer only. "
In Ravi Chopra v. State & another (2008 (2) LRC 118 del) it was held by the Hon'ble high court that "it is possible for drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either implidely or expressly to the said cheque being filed by the payee at a subsequent point of time".
Similarly it was held by the kerala high court in lillykutty v. lawrence (2004 (1) JCC (NI) 14), that there is no rule in banking business that payee's name and the amount should be written by drawer himself. Further the burden is on the accused to establish that the date, amount and payee's name are written by somebody else without the knowledge and consent of the drawer.
From the above stated cases it is clear that in a case where cheque is handed over without filling the name of the payee or other particulars, it is upon accused to prove by positive evidence that he/she did not give implied or express consent to the complainant to fill in the name of the payee and the other particulars. However in the present case no such cogent evidence have been adduced by the accused.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence on record it stands proved that the cheques in question were CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 9 of Pages 20 issued by the accused.
10. WHETHER THE CHEQUES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN DISCHARGE OF ANY LEGAL DEBT OR OTHER LIABILITY:
It is submitted by the CW1 that she was working as professor of Anatomy at Shree Bankey Bihari Dental College & Research Centre, Masuri, Dist. Ghaziabad (U.P) and had family & friendly relations with the accused as son of the accused was student of the complainant. In the month of May 2007 during their visit, the accused approached her to invest her hard earned money for purchasing properties and as per the advise of the accused, the complainant handedover 03 cheques amounting to Rs.4,75,000/ and also made a cash payment of Rs.50,000/ to the accused against the receipt dated 22.06.2007. Thereafter the accused kept delaying handing over possession of the dreamt property to the complainant by saying that there is some problem in UP Government, then the complainant asked the accused to return her money, on that, the accused had given Rs. 50,000/ vide cheque no.504869 on 11.03.2008 thereafter he also paid Rs.50,000/ vide cheque no.098552 dated 29.08.2008 and after that balance amount due upon the accused towards the complainant was Rs.4,25,000/. Thereafter the accused issued two cheques bearing no. 091569 dated 29.08.2008 & no. 091570 dated 29.09.2008 for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ each but on presentation the said cheques were returned back dishonored CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 10 of Pages 20 with the remark "INSUFFICIENT FUND" vide dishonour memos dated 22.01.2009. Thereafter on further persuasion the accused again requested the complainant to deposit the said two cheques along with another newly issued cheque no.081007 dated 09.02.2009 for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ for encashment, but on presentation again all three cheques were returned back dishonored. The three cheques are exhibited in the present case are Ex. CW1/E, Ex. CW1/F & Ex. CW1/G. At this stage let us go through the relevant provisions of law. There is a presumption in favour of the complainant u/s 118 (a) Negotiable Instruments Act that until the contrary is proved, it will be presumed that every negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration and every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in the Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of his debt or liability.
Now it will have to be examined whether the accused has rebutted the presumption as contemplated by Section 118
(b) and Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172(2010) DLT 561 that the CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 11 of Pages 20 offence u/s 138 NI Act is a technical offence and the complainant is only supposed to prove that the cheques issued by the respondent were dishonored, his statement that cheques were issued against liability or debt is sufficient proof of the debt or liability and the onus shifts to the respondent / accused to show the circumstances under which the cheques came to be issued and this could be proved by the respondent only by way of evidence and not by leading no evidence. It was further observed that in order to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which the cheques were issued. It was for the accused to prove if no loan was taken why he did not write a letter to the complainant for return of the cheques. Unless the accused had proved that he acted like a normal businessman / prudent person entering into a contract he could not have rebutted the presumption u/s 139 NI Act. If no loan was given but cheques were retained he immediately would have protested and asked the cheques to be return and still cheques were not returned he would have served a notice as complainant.
Similarly in the present case it was for the accused to prove why he did not write a letter to the complainant for return of the cheques in question. Unless the accused had proved that he acted like a normal businessman / prudent person entering into a transaction he could not have rebutted the presumption u/s 139 NI Act. It was for the accused to have protested and asked the complainant to return the cheques and if still cheques CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 12 of Pages 20 were not returned he would have served a notice as complainant.
Therefore after the establishment of the fact that the cheque was issued by the accused and specific statement of the complainant as stated above regarding liability of the accused the burden to rebut the presumption shifted to the accused. It is established principle of law that presumption of law as raised Under sections 138 & 118 of the N.I. Act can be rebutted only by cogent evidence and not by mere plea taken in the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 r.w section 281 of Cr.P.C. Further such cogent evidence can be the cross examination of the complainant or his witnesses (as held in Birender Singh V. state (NCT of Delhi) 2008(1)JCC (NI) 15).
In a similar case, Jose Vs. P.C. Joy 2008 (4) RCR (Crl) 251( Kerala HC), it was submitted by the accused that the cheque in question was given by the accused to the complainant as a security. Though the liability was settled as evidenced by Ex. D1 & Ex. D1(a) the cheque was not returned, inspite of requests. Therefore a stop memo was issued to the bank by the accused. He also gave a criminal complaint against the complainant which was taken on file as C.M.P 281/01 ( Ex. D2).
On these cogent evidences and the fact of issuing stop memo to the bank and filling a criminal complaint against the complainant the presumption under NI Act stood rebutted. However in the present case there is no cogent evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the accused to support his plea CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 13 of Pages 20 that the cheques in question were given to the complainant as security. No stop memo has been issued by him to his bank. He has not taken any other legal remedy against complainant. Accused have not brought on record any document to show that there was any agreement to sell executed between him and the complainant in respect of any plot at Bawana. Accused has not brought any document to show that the sum of Rs.5,25,000/ was received by him from the complainant as bayana. He has also not shown any document or any notice issued by him to the complainant where in he had asked the complainant to complete the alleged sale. The accused have also failed to explain why he returned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ to the complainant, though he submitted that he returned the same as husband of the complainant was very ill and she was in great financial difficulty, however this plea of the accused is outrightly rejected by the complainant and is also not very convincing. Thus the bald plea of the accused having not been substantiated by any cogent, convincing and clear evidence would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption of law.
The Ld. Defence counsel had pointed out certain minor contradictions in the testimony of the complainant as it is pointed out by him that complainant had submitted that she never had any talks with the accused about the cheque amount after 11.01.2009, then how the accused handedover the third cheque dated 09.02.2009 to her. This contention is not significant enough to rebutt the statutory presumption arised in CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 14 of Pages 20 favor of the complainant. The presumption U/s 118 & 139 of NI Act are mandatory presumptions in favor of the complainant and the same can not be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists.
The counsel for the accused cited the decision of the Supreme court in his favour titled as Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattataraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 & 2003(1) JCC(NI)30 Rajasthan High Court, however the ratio of these cases that existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under section 139 of the NI Act, has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in Rangappa Vs Mohan 2010TLPRE0300 (A Three Judges Bench Judgement) where in it was held:
We are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct.
Thus from the above stated discussion it is clear that the CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 15 of Pages 20 accused has failed to rebut the presumptions U/s 118 (b) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Considering the entire evidence on record, it stands duly proved that the cheques in question which are Ex.CW1/E, Ex. CW1/F & Ex. CW1/G were issued and drawn in discharge of legal liability of the accused and for consideration.
11. WHETHER THE CHEQUES WERE PRESENTED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY:
Perusal of the record reveals that the cheques in question which are Ex. CW1/E, Ex. CW1/F & Ex. CW1/G are dated 29.08.2008, 29.09.2008 & 09.02.2009 respectively, all of them were lastly got dishonoured vide cheque returning memos which are Ex. CW1/H, Ex. CW1/I & Ex. CW1/J dated 12.02.2009 which clearly shows that the cheques had been presented within period of their validity i.e. within six months from the date of the cheques. The accused has not objected to or denied this fact.
Thus this fact stand proved beyond doubt that cheques were presented for encashment within time.
12. DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES IN QUESTION:
In this case CW1 has got exhibited the cheques returning memos as per section 146 of N.I. Act which are Ex. CW1/H, Ex. CW1/I & Ex. CW1/J, as per which the cheques in question were dishonoured on the ground of "Insufficient Funds". The accused has not objected to or denied this fact. Thus this fact stand proved beyond doubt that cheques were dishonoured on the CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 16 of Pages 20 ground of "Insufficient Funds".
13. SERVICE OF LEGAL NOTICE OF DEMAND UPON THE ACCUSED:
CW1 has specifically stated in his examination in chief that the complainant got issued the legal notice of demand dated 07.03.2009 which is Ex. CW1/K and it was sent to the accused on the same day vide (within 30 days of knowledge of dishonour of cheque) vide Registered Post and UPC which are Ex. CW1/N, Ex. CW/L & Ex. CW1/M. The legal notice was sent to the accused at his address i.e. 43334, First Floor, Gali No.14, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5.
The accused has submitted in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC that he did not received the legal notice. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that on Ex. CW1/L which is receipt of registered post and Ex. CW1/N which is also slip of registered post the complete address of the accused is not mentioned as on Ex. CW1/L only Mukesh Bhatia 43334, Karol Bagh, Delhi and on Ex. CW1/M Mukesh Bhatia Faiz Road, K Bagh, Delhi5 is mentioned hence the notice was never sent to the correct address of the accused which is 43334, First floor, Gali No.14, Faiz Raod, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5. On the other hand it is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant UPC receipt Ex. CW1/N bears complete address of the accused, further even the registered letters were sent to the correct address of the accused but there receipts which are filled up by CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 17 of Pages 20 the official of the postal department never bear complete address of the addressee. It is further pointed out by him that the legal notice bears complete address of the accused thus it is very much clear that they had sent the legal notice at the correct and complete address of the accused.
Considering the fact that UPC receipt bears complete and correct address of the accused, further body of legal notice also bear complete and correct address of the accused thus the fact that on postal receipts complete address of the accused is not mentioned is of no relevance because these postal receipts are prepared by official of postal department, for the purpose of an acknowledgment that the letter have been posted thus non mentioning of complete address on the same does not mean that notice was not sent to the correct address. Further in the present matter summons were sent to the correct and complete address of the accused same is the address mentioned by the accused in his bailbond. Thus it stand proved that the notice was sent at the correct address of the accused.
In K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, it was held by the Apex court that:
"No doubt Section 138 of the Act require that the notice should be given only by "post". Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 (quoted above) can be profitably be imported in a case whee the sender has dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it then can be deemed to CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 18 of Pages 20 have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service. Any other interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position, as the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding the notice".
The above stated position was again reiterated by the Apex court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed's case where apex court further held:
It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
In the present case the legal notice was dispatched at CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 19 of Pages 20 the correct address of the accused this is the same address as mentioned by the accused in his bail bond & surety bond. Therefore it can be safely deemed that legal notice was duly served upon the accused.
14. THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUES HAS FAILED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE:
CW1 has deposed in his examination in chief that despite service of legal notice of demand accused has failed to pay the cheques amount to the complainant. Accused has submitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he did not received the legal notice and there was no question of making any payment to the complainant in respect of the cheques in question as he was not legally liable to pay in respect of the cheques in question. Therefore this fact also stands proved.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has proved his case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. All the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been duly proved on record. Accordingly, accused Mukesh Bhatia, S/o Late Sh. Baldev Rai Bhatia, R/o 43334, Lane No.14, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 stands convicted of the offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of cheques beainng no. 091569, 091570 & 081007 all drawn on Allahabad Bank.
CC No.7208/10 KRISHNA GARG v. MUKESH BHATIA page no. 20 of Pages 20 Let the copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 11.05.2012 (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) (Contain 20 pages only) MM: KKD: DELHI: 11.05.2012