Delhi District Court
Arvind Bajaj vs Nipoon Computers Pvt Ltd., Etc on 28 April, 2007
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Arvind Bajaj V/s Nipoon Computers Pvt Ltd., etc
C.C No. 1251/1 of year 2003
U/s 138 of N.I. Act
PS : Preet Vihar, Delhi
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1251/1 of year 2003
b) Date of the commission of : 16/08/02
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Arvind Bajaj,
Proprietor of M/s
Aggarwal Enterprises
d) Name of the accused, : (1) M/s Nipoon
their parentage and Computers Aids (P) Ltd,
residence Plot No. 11, Sector-37,
Pace City, Gurgaon,
Haryana, (2) Deepak
Aggarwal (Director), R/o
Plot No. 11, Sector-37,
Pace City, Gurgaon,
Haryana and (3) Rajan
Aggarwal (Director), R/o
Plot No. 11, Sector-37,
Pace City, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
e) Offence complained of or : Sec. 138 of N.I. Act,
proved 1881
f) Plea of the accused : Both accused pleaded
not guilty.
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1251/1 of year 2003
g) Final order : Accused, Rajan Aggarwal
acquitted and accused,
Deepak Aggarwal is
convicted.
h) Date of such order : 24/04/2007
i) BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION.
1.By this judgment, I have to decide a complaint dated 22/03/03 filed by complainant, Sh. Arvind Bajaj, Proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Enterprises (in short called as complainant hereinafter) against the accused namely, Deepak Aggarwal and Rajan Aggarwal respectively, both Directors of M/s Nipoon Computers Pvt Ltd i.e Accused No. 1 herein, (in short called as accused No. 1 hereinafter). This complaint has been filed U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended upto date, (in short called as N.I. Act hereinafter).
2. The main facts of this complaint are to the effect that complainant was the proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Enterprises having its office at Chawri Bazar, Delhi and doing business of pulp and papers as wholesale agent; that accused No. 1 is a Private Limited company; that accused No. 1, through its Director, Rajan Aggarwal cotacted the complainant for supply of papers and after the settlement of terms and conditions pertaining to the same, the complainant supplied the papers to accused No. 1 from time to time; that accused No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 5,80,859/- from 01/03/02 till 31/07/02 leaving a balance of Rs. 2,23,118/-; that accused No. 1 issued a cheque No. 943708 dated 16/08/02 drawn on Canera Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- for discharge of its liability; that the accused side further paid Rs. 60, 257/- and the ultimate liability of the accused stood for Rs. 2,84,986/- including interest as on 30/11/02; that on 05/02/03, accused No. 2 requested the complainant to present the cheque of Rs. 2,35,000/- to the bank for encashment, which was so presented but it was returned back unpaid on 10/02/03 with the remarks ''not arranged for/exceeds arrangement''; that thereafter a legal demand notice was also issued to accused demanding the outstanding amount but the same was not paid from the side of the accused and hence this complaint was filed making prayer therein to take appropriate legal action against all the accused as per law.
3. After supply of copies and hearing arguments on point of notice from both sides, a notice of accusation U/s 138 of N.I. Act was framed against all the accused on 24/01/04 to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. From the side of the complainant, CW1 Sh. Arvind Bajaj was only examined at the after notice stage and then remaining Complainant Evidence (in short called as C/E hereinafter) at the after notice stage was closed.
5. Statements of both the accused facing trial were recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC on 02/12/06 in which they denied the allegations against them as false and incorrect and also wanted to lead defence evidence (in short called as D/E hereinafter).
6. No D/W was produced by any of the accused despite sufficient time given to them for this purpose and hence the same was closed.
7. Oral final arguments were heard from the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as from Ld. Counsel of accused No. 3 on 25/01/07 as the same were not submitted on that day on behalf of accused Nos 1 and 2, despite opportunity given. In the interest of justice, further opportunity was given to both sides for filing written synopsis of final arguments, if so desired, by supplying advance copy of the same to each other. The same have been filed on record on behalf of the complainant as well as on behalf of accused No. 1 & 2 respectively but not filed on behalf of accused No. 3.
8. The main submissions on behalf of the complainant, during the course of oral final arguments and also in the written synopsis of final arguments filed on record, have been to the effect that accused Nos 2 and 3 were working as directors on behalf of accused No. 1 at the relevant time; that though the cheque in question was signed by accused No. 2 only on behalf of accused No. 1, yet accused No. 3 is also liable for the alleged offence as he was also working as Director of accused No. 1 at relevant time; that both the accused i.e No.s 2 & 3 are liable as per mandate of Sec. 141 of N.I. Act on behalf of accused No.1; that accused No. 3 approached the complainant for supply of papers on behalf of accused No. 1; that accused Nos 2 and 3 were responsible for day to day affairs of company i.e accused No. 1; that there is a prsumption of liability of accused No's2 and 3 on behalf of accused No. 1 as per mandate of Sec. 139 of N.I. Act. Lastly, a submission was made to punish all the accused for the offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act.
9. On the the other hand, the main submissions on behalf of accused No. 3, during the course of oral final arguments, were to the effect that nothing was due to the complainant from his side; that the cheque in question was issued by accused No. 2 only in favour of complainant on behalf of accused No. 1; that he (accused No. 3) was not at all involved in any transaction with the complainant at any point of time; that he was simply made an accused by the complainant because he happened to be a Director of the accused No. 1 company for a certain period; that no transaction took place on his behalf with the complainant during his tenure as a Director of accused No. 1; that he had already resigned as Director of accused No. 1 at the time of alleged transaction; that he had been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case without any justification. On the basis of these grounds mainly, the acquittal of accused No. 3 was prayed for.
10. The main submissions mentioned in the written synopsis of final arguments filed on behalf of accused No. 1 & 2, are to the effect that accused No. 2 offered payment of the outstanding amount to the complainant on behalf of the accused No. 1 from time to time but the complainant side refused to receive the same from time to time on one pretext or the other and without any valid reasons; that he had no intention to delay the outstanding payment of the complainant; that an amount of Rs. 1,62,861/- was only due to the complainant from their side and that it was offered to be paid by accused No. 2 to the complainant from time to time on behalf of accused No. 1 but he did not accept the same without any justification; that an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- was not due to the complainant from the accused side as alleged in this complaint; that cheque in question was issued by accused No. 2 in favour of complainant on behalf of accused No. 1 as a security cheque for further supplies; that there is no evidence worth proving the case against the accused No. 1 & 2 for the alleged outstanding amount beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, a prayer was made on behalf of both these accused for their acquittal also in this matter.
11. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions made from both sides.
12. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, I consider it essential to refer to the provisions of sections 138, 139, 141 and 142 of N.I. Act respectively, which are considered relevant for deciding this case on merits.
13. Section 138 of N.I. Act provides as under :-
''138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. -- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 1[a term which may be extend to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 2[within thirty days) of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice''.
14. Section 139 of N.I. Act provides as under:-
''139. Presumption in favour of holder. -- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.]''
15. Section 141 of N.I. Act provides as under:-
''141. Offences by companies -- (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence:
Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.''
16. Section 142 of N.I. Act provides as under:-
''
142. Cognizance of offences. -- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;
(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause-of-action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:2
[Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.]
(c) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.]
17. Now turning to the evidence on record, the complainant i.e CW1 Sh. Arvind Bajaj adopted the affidavit earlier filed by him at pre-summoning stage in lieu of his examination-in-chief at the after notice stage also, which is already on record attested by Oath Commissioner on 22/03/03 on the basis of which accused herein were summoned to fact trial in this case. On the basis of that affidavit, CW1 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused. From the careful perusal of his entire deposition, I am of the considered opinion that in this affidavit, he has mainly repeated some of the written averments of his written complaint dated 22/03/03. However, in his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused No. 1 and 2, on the basis of this affidavit, he deposed, inter alia, that he had not filed any proof/documents showing that he was the Proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Enterprises; that he did not want to file any such proof regarding this case; that he started dealing with the accused persons in the year 1997 on the terms and conditions printed on the invoices; that he had issued legal notice to accused No. 1 on 21/02/03; that amount given in the legal notice at para-4 was Rs. 3,03,965/-, which was due from the accused as on 01/03/02; that it was a typing error but he did not give any application for getting the same corrected because he noted down the mistake later on; that in para-8 of this complaint, he stated the outstanding amount due from the accused as Rs. 2,84,986/- upto 30/11/02 in which principle amount was Rs. 1,62,861/- and the interest was Rs. 1,22,125 for the period from 01/01/2001 to 15/08/02; that he had no proof showing that he had delivered the statement of account alongwith interest to the accused persons; that he had most of the times received the part payment from the accused persons against the bills; that it was a single cheque in this matter issued by accused No. 2 namely, Deepak Aggarwal; that it was correct that he had received a sum of Rs. 5,80,859/- from the accused persons during 01/03/02 to 31/07/02; that he deposited the cheque in question for encashment with his banker in the month of February 2003; that he delayed the depositing of the cheque with the bank on the request of accused Deepak Aggarwal; that it was correct that accused persons were ready and willing to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,62,861/-, which he refused to receive. In the cross-examination of this witness conducted by accused No. 3, Rajan Aggarwal himself, he admitted that he had talks with accused No. 3 only upto the stage of issuing of legal notice for recovery of the amount due; that he did not remember whether he had any talk with accused No. 3 after December 2002; that he had talks with accused No. 2, Deepak Aggarwal at the time of depositing the cheque in question; that it was correct that he had issued the legal demand notice to the company only and not to accused No. 2 and 3.
18. The main submissions on behalf of the complainant in this case against the accused No. 3 have been throughout to the effect that he was also to be held answerable alongwith accused No 1 and 2 for the alleged offence in this case because he was also the Director of accused No. 1 at relevant time and was also actively responsible for the conduct of its business at relevant time. On this aspect, I am of the considered opinion that there are various judgments of the Hon'bleHigh Courts as well as of Hon'ble Apex Court as regards foisting of liability of such like accused in such like cases by the mandate of Sec. 141 of N.I. Act.
19. In the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as '' M/s Darbar Exports and Others V/s Bank 2003 (2) DCR 1999 (Delhi High of India and Others'', Court), the main emphasis of Hon'bleDelhi High Court in para-5 of this judgment was to the effect that Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act creates criminal liabilities against those only who at the time of commission of the offence, were found to be incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of it's business. It was further observed that criminal liability cannot be foisted upon someone on the basis of conjectures or surmises. Specific allegations supported by evidence have to be brought on record for setting into motion the machinery of criminal law against such an accused.
20. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as '' K.P.S. Nair V/s M/s Jindal Menthal 2001 (2) Supreme 311 (Supreme Court), the India Ltd'', Hon'ble Apex Court held in this judgment in para-7 mainly to the effect that from the perusal of excerpts of the complaint, it was seen that no where it was stated that on the date when the offence was alleged to have been committed in that case, the appellant was Incharge of or was responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business.
21. In an another important judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as '' S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd V/s Nita Bhalla and Another'' 2005 Vol-VIII AD (Supreme Court) 107, it was held in para-12 of this judgment mainly to the effect that a Director of a company, who was not Incharge of and was not responsible for the conduct of its business at the relevant time will not be liable under the provisions of Sec. 138 r/w Sec. 141 of N.I. Act. It was further laid down that the liability arise from being Incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation of office in the company.
22. There is yet another judgment on this point of Hon'bleKolkata High Court, reported as '' Mohan Kumar Mukherjee V/s Hido Tea Company Ltd'',1998 (4) Crimes 270 (Kolkata High Court). The Hon'ble Kolkata High Court emphasised in para-7 of this judgment mainly to the effect that to show that a person sought to be proceeded against as an accused for an offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act r/w Sec. 141 of N.I. Act, it was necessary on the part of the complainant to prove that such a person was incharge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of it's business.
23. In this background, now I proceed first to decide whether accused No. 3 is really liable or not in this matter for the offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act r/w Sec. 141 N.I. Act. Admittedly, the cheque in question i.e Ex. CW1/L on record has been signed by accused No. 2, Deepak Aggarwal only, on behalf of accused No. 1. It was admittedly, not signed by accused No. 3 namely Rajan Aggarwal on behalf of accused No. 1.
24. As per mandate of Sec. 138 r/w Sec. 141 of N.I. Act, as mentioned above, and in view of evidence on record read with ratio of decisions of Hon'ble Higher Courts as referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that accused No. 3 could have been made liable for the offence in this matter only, if he had also signed the cheque in question on behalf of accused No. 1 or if he was really Incharge of or was responsible to the company i.e accused No. 1 herein for the conducts of its day to day business at relevant time. Even in the cross-examination of complainant conducted on behalf of accused No. 3, it was admitted by complainant himself that he did not remember whether he had talks with accused No. 3 after December 2002. He further admitted that he had talks with accused No. 2, Deepak Aggarwal at the time of depositing the cheque for encashment. He also admitted that he issued legal notice to the company only i.e to accused No. 1 and not by name to accused No. 2 & 3 respectively.
25. From this own admission on the part of the complainant read with other entire material on record coupled with ratio of decisions of Hon'bleHigher Courts as referred to above, I am further of the considered opinion that complainant side has miserably failed to satisfy this court that accused No. 3 was really Incharge of or was responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No. 1 herein at relevant time so as to make him also liable for the offence U/s 138 r/w Sec. 141 of N.I. Act in this matter. Further, no presumption can be drawn against accused No. 3 as per mandate of See. 139 N.I. Act in the facts and circumstances of this case because the cheque in question was not issued by him at all on behalf of accused No. 1.
26. In view of the above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire material on record, including oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that complainant side has not been successful to prove the guilt of the accused No. 3 in this matter beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, accused No. 3 namely, Rajan Aggarwal is hereby acquitted in this matter for the offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act. His bail bonds are discharged and his surety also discharged.
27. Now, I proceed to discuss the evidence on record qua the liability of accused No. 2 for himself as well as on behalf of accused No. 1 in the capacity of its Director.
28. Admittedly, the cheque in question i.e Ex. CW1/L on record in sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant and it has been signed by accused No. 2, Deepak Aggarwal only on behalf of accused No. 1, which was payable at Canara Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi. As per cheque return memo Ex CW1/M on record, the cheque in question was returned unpaid bearing endorsement to the effect ''not arranged for/exceeds arrangement''.It is also evident from the record that this cheque amount was not paid by accused No. 2 to the complainant despite receiving of legal demand notice Ex. CW1/O on record. CW1 i.e complainant has also been successful in his deposition recorded at the after notice stage in foisting the liability of accused No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the cheque amount in question, which was issued by him on behalf of accused No. 1 by mandate of Sec. 141 of N.I. Act. The presumption of liability U/s 139 of N.I Act also applies against the accused No. 2 herein. Accused No. 2 has also failed to lead any defence evidence before this court in rebuttal to the presumption against him U/s 139 of N.I. Act and further in support of the fact that he was really innocent pertaining to this matter and it was despite the fact that sufficient time was given to him to lead defence evidence in this regard on his behalf. The ratio of various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and of Hon'ble High Courts, as discussed above, also supports the case of the complainant against accused No. 2 in order to make him liable on behalf of accused No. 1 being incharge of and also responsible to the company (accused No. 1 herein) for the conduct of it's business at relevant time as per mandate of Sec. 141 of N.I. Act.
29. In view of the above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record coupled with the ratio of above mentioned decisions, I am further of the considered opinion that the complainant side has been successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused No. 2 in his capacity as a Director of accused No. 1 for the offence U/s 138 r/w Sec. 141 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is convicted in this matter for the offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act for which notice of accusation was framed against him in this matter. Let certified copy of this judgment be given free of cost to both sides as prayed for. With this order, now to come up for hearing arguments on point of sentence on 26/04/07 from 2:00 p.m onwards as jointly prayed for. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 24/04/07 (DR. SHAHABUDDIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI Arvind Bajaj V/s Nipoon Computers Pvt Ltd., etc C.C No. 1251/1 of year 2003 U/s 138 of N.I. Act PS : Preet Vihar, Delhi ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE 28/04/07
1. Present : Ld. Counsel, Sh. Vishal Sharma for complainant. Accused No. 1 is a company represented by accused No. 2 & 3. Accused No. 3 namely, Rajan Aggarwal has already been acquitted as per record. Accused No. 2/Convict (in short called as convict hereinafter), namely, Deepak Aggarwal present on bail on his behalf as well as on behalf of accused No. 1, in the capacity of Director thereof, with Ld. Counsel, Sh. Vivek Sharma.
2. By this order, I have to pass order on point of sentence.
3. I have already heard arguments on point of sentence from Ld. Counsel, Sh. V.N. Sharma on behalf of complainant and from Ld. Counsel, Sh. Vivek Sharma on behalf of convict, Deepak Aggarwal.
4. The main submission of Ld. Counsel for complainant was to the effect that convict, Deepak Aggarwal, for himself as well as for accused No. 1, has already been convicted by this court for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act; that he had unduly delayed the payment of substantial outstanding amount of the complainant for a long period of time, which was due to the complainant from the side of accused No. 1, represented by him as Director thereof; that he did so without any justified reasons; that he should be strictly punished as per law.
5. On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld Counsel on behalf of the convict namely, Deepak Aggarwal were to the effect that convict was always ready and willing to pay an actual outstanding amount in sum of Rs. 1,62,861/- to the complainant but he intentionally refused to receive the same without any valid reasons in order to extract some more money from the convict in future in the form of this principle amount alongwith excessive rate of interest upon it; that intention of the convict was never malafide and he had been honestly requesting the complainant from time to time for the payment of this actual amount due to the complainant with some reasonable interest; that convict is a responsible earning member to support his entire family; that it is the only case in which he has been facing trial for a long time and that there is no other case ever filed/registered against him except this one; that the convict is still ready to pay this actual amount due to the complainant with reasonable interest thereon even at this stage; that no previous conviction has been proved against him in any other case. In view of the above mentioned reasons, a lenient view on point of sentence was prayed for on behalf of convict, Deepak Aggarwal in his capacity as Director of accused No 1.
6. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
7. In my considered opinion, it has come on record, as per the deposition of complainant himself, that there was a principle outstanding amount of complainant due towards convict in sum of Rs. 1,62,861/-. An interest in sum of Rs. 1,22,125/- has also been claimed upon this principle amount with effect from 01/01/2001 to 15/08/2002, as per evidence of complainant as CW1 recorded at after notice stage. In other words, the principle amount due to the complainant from the side of convict, as per his own admission, was Rs. 1,62,861/- only and the remaining amount has been claimed as interest thereon. I am further of the considered opinion, that the interest claimed is highly excessive and does not appear to be reasonable. It also appears from the record that convict was honestly willing to make payment of the principle amount due to the complainant from time time but complainant refused to accept the payment of it for one reason or the other. It is also true that the convict is regularly facing trial of this case for a long time. It is also true that no previous conviction has been proved against the convict. The convict also appears to be a responsible earning member for his family.
8. In view of the above mentioned discussion, I take somewhat a lenient view against the convict on point of sentence.
9. Accordingly, the convict, Deepak Aggarwal, in the capacity of Director of accused No. 1, is hereby sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,35,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and thirty five thousand only), which is the cheque amount herein and which is considered to be a reasonable penalty in the facts and circumstances of this case. In default of payment of this fine, the convict shall further undergo a simple imprisonment for three months. Whole of the fine, when recovered from convict, shall be paid as compensation to the complainant as per mandate of Sec. 357 of Cr.PC. Let certified copy of this order be also given 'dasti' to both sides today itself against due receipt. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision, as the case may be. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 28/04/07 (DR. SHAHABUDDIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI