Delhi District Court
Fusion Power Systems ... Complainant vs Lg Weighing Systems & Anr. ... Accused on 19 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT) - 08
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Apoorv Bhardwaj
In case of:-
FUSION POWER SYSTEMS ... Complainant
VERSUS
LG WEIGHING SYSTEMS & ANR. ... Accused
JUDGMENT
a) Sl no. of the case : 45353/2018
b) CNR of the case : DLSW020458682018
c) Date of institution 20.11.2018
d) Name, parentage and Fusion Power Systems,
address of the A-221, Street No. 7, Road No. 4,
complainant : Mahipalpur Extn. NH-8, New Delhi
e) Name, parentage and 1. LG Weighing Systems address of the accused 2. Mr Pankaj Jindal persons: Both at 9/72 Gali Bagichi Wali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi -
110032
Also at O22/A7, Pocket O, DIlshad
Garden, Delhi 110097
f) Offence complained of : 138 NI Act
g) Total cheque amount : Rs 2,24,000/-
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
i) Arguments heard on : 29.04.2023
j) Final order : Acquitted
k) Date of Judgment : 19.05.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') by the complainant against the accused.
Factual Matrix
2. The complainant is stated to be a proprietorship concern and the complaint is filed by one Mr Tarundeep Singh who claims in the complaint to have been so authorized by the complainant vide power of attorney. It is submitted that the accused had purchased certain articles i.e. sealed rechargeable batteries worth Rs 2,24,000/- from the complainant against invoice no. DL/04884/18-19 dated 1.06.2018. Thereafter the accused issued the cheque in question i.e. cheque bearing no. 118353 dated 02.07.2018 for a sum of Rs 2,24,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda. Thereafter, the complainant presented the aforementioned cheque to their own bank i.e. Yes Bank, Kapashera Branch which was returned unpaid for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement" vide returning memo dated 26.09.2019. Thereafter, despite issuance of legal demand notice to the accused on 23.10.2018, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days thereof and hence the present case.
3. Upon a prima facie consideration of pre-summoning evidence, cognizance of offence under section 138 NI Act was taken and the accused was summoned. Thereafter, separate notice explaining the accusation was put to the accused under section 251 of The Code Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.2 of 21 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage the following aspects were admitted/denied by him:-
3.1. Signatures on the cheque in question - Admitted. 3.2. Filling up of material particulars - Admitted 3.3. Receiving the legal demand notice - Admitted In his defence he stated that :-
"My plea of defence is that after receiving the legal notice I had already made a payment of Rs 2 lakhs to the complainant. I am liable to pay only Rs 24,000/- to the complainant. There are some other disputes regarding replacement of some articles supplied by the complainant to me. I am not liable to the extent of the cheque in question."
Thereafter, cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses under section 145(2) NI Act was permitted.
4. Sh. Tarundeep Singh was examined as CW-1 and he relied on his pre-summoning evidence as his post summoning evidence and relied on his evidence by way of affidavit Ex CW1/1 and on the following documents i.e. 4.1. Ex. CW1/2 (Invoice) 4.2. Ex. CW1/3 (cheque in question) 4.3. Ex CW1/4 (Returning memo) 4.4. Ex CW1/5 (Legal demand notice) 4.5. Ex CW1/6 (Postal receipt) 4.6. Ex CW1/7 (copy of returned envelope) 4.7. Ex CW1/8 (copy of tracking report) I shall observe right here that the power of attorney was not Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.3 of 21 exhibited at the stage of pre-summoning or post-summoning evidence nor any exhibit number was given to the power of attorney in the affidavit Ex CW1/1. Power of attorney did not find any mention in the list of documents as well. A power of attorney is however a part of the case file but it has not been exhibited or relied upon by Sh Tarundeep Singh throughout the trial.
5. Thereafter, CW-1 was cross-examined. During his cross examination he stated the following 5.1. He works in the administration department of the complainant.
5.2. Firm used to receive post dated cheque before supply of the material.
5.3. Gautam Walia is a sales person in their firm. 5.4. The accused had made a payment of Rs 2 lakhs through RTGS on 17.11.2018 in the account of the complainant.
5.5. He denied the suggestion that the amount of Rs 2 lakhs which was paid on 17.11.2018 was with regard to the cheque in question.
He denied various other suggestions given by Ld Counsel for the accused.
6. A bank witness was also examined as CW-2 on behalf of the complainant to prove that the complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court. He produced the account statement Ex CW2/1 showing that the complainant maintains his bank account in the Yes Bank, Kapashera Branch. He was not cross-examined despite the opportunity.
7. In the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC, he reiterated his defence stated at the stage of framing of notice Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.4 of 21 under section 251 CrPC. He opted to lead Defence Evidence.
8. As DW-1 the accused reiterated that he had already paid Rs 2 lakhs to the complainant on 17.11.2018 after holding discussion with one Sh Gautam and one Sh Kapil Sood. He also stated that around 60-70 batteries were defective and he had returned the same to the complainant. The complainant never replaced these batteries. The complainant should have deducted the amount of these batteries from his total outstanding. He relied on the following documents 8.1. His whatsapp conversation with Kapil Sood Ex DW1/1 (colly 2 pages) 8.2. Copy of cheque provided for NEFT payment Ex DW1/2 8.3. Copy of his accounts statement Ex DW1/3 8.4. Certificate under section 65B Evidence Act
9. During his cross-examination he stated that LG Weighing System is his proprietorship concern. He did not dispute the suggestion that on 16.05.2018 he had ordered 1000 batteries from the complainant. He denied the suggestion that amount of Rs 2 lakhs paid by him on 17.11.2018 was towards the order made by him on 16.05.2018. He did not reply to the legal demand notice but had spoken telephonically to the representatives of the complainant. He was also shown one new cheque ExDW1/X1. He admitted that the said cheque was issued by him. He denied the suggestion that the payment made on 17.11.2018 was with respect to this cheque Ex DW1/X1. He did not have any receipt from the complainant regarding returning of 60-70 batteries to them. He explained that he did not have any such receipt because the factories were sealed Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.5 of 21 in the year 2019.
10. During the course of final arguments Ld counsel for the complainant Sh Siddhant Tyagi submitted the following 10.1. The accused had indeed paid a sum of Rs 2 lakhs to the complainant after receiving the legal demand notice and before filing of this case however, the complainant had adjusted that amount in other outstanding dues of the accused and the accused was still liable to pay Rs 2,24,000/- to the complainant. 10.2. The accused has admitted that he had ordered 1000 batteries on 16.05.2018.
10.3. The accused had discharged his liability in part.
Therefore, the complainant had full right to adjust the amount towards dues other than the cheque amount. Further, if the accused really wanted that the amount of Rs 2 lakhs shall be adjusted towards the cheque amount he should have stated the same in a reply to legal demand notice which he failed to send.
10.4. The accused has failed to bring any proof that he had returned 60-70 batteries to the complainant.
11. Per contra, Ld counsel for the accused Sh Pratyush Chirantan submitted that the complainant has filed a patently false complaint against the accused and the complaint is not even maintainable in the eyes of the law. The crux of his arguments is as follows 11.1. The power of attorney has never been exhibited by Sh Tarundeep Singh. The Power of Attorney which is part of the case file is even otherwise prima facie an unreliable document since it is neither notarized nor Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.6 of 21 sworn before an oath commissioner. Therefore, since there is nothing on record to show that the complaint has been filed by the payee or a holder in due course, the complaint is not maintainable.
11.2. The accused is a law abiding citizen and he has duly initiated consultations with the representatives of complainant and the sole proprietor Sh Kapil Sood after receiving the legal demand notice. Law does not prescribe any format in which a legal notice shall be replied to. Telephonic conversation with respect to contents of the legal demand notice are sufficient compliance of the law specifically when the accused has even made the payment of Rs 2 lakhs before filing of the complainant.
11.3. The complainant has deliberately concealed this very material information at the stage of filing of the complaint and for this reason FIR shall be registered against the complainant for malicious prosecution of the accused.
11.4. The accused was not liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs 24,000/- to the complainant since the complainant had never replaced the defective batteries.
11.5. He relied on the following judgments 11.5.1. A.C. Narayanan v State of Maharashtra, 2013(11) Scale 360 11.5.2. Milind Shripad Chandurkar v Kalim M Khan (2011) 4 SCC 275 Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.7 of 21
12. In view of the above discussion the following points for determination arise in this case Point of determination no.1 Whether Sh Tarundeep Singh was properly authorised to file and pursue this complaint on behalf of the payee of the cheque in question.
Point of determination no. 2 If the answer to the first point is in affirmative then whether presumption arises in favour of the complainant and against the accused.
Point of determination no. 3 If the answer to the above is in affirmative then whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against him.
I shall now analyse the record in light of the above discussion.
Point of determination no. 1 : Whether Sh Tarundeep Singh was properly authorised to file and pursue this complaint on behalf of the payee of the cheque in question.
13. It will be pertinent to reproduce section 142 NI Act in this regard:-
Section 142: Cognizance of offences: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
1. 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 Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.8 of 21 cheque;
[...]
14. Therefore, as per section 142 NI Act a complaint under section 138 NI Act can be filed only by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. However, this requirement has been relaxed by subsequent judicial pronouncements and a complaint filed through/or continued through a legal heir or an authorized representative have been held to be completely valid. Reliance can be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan v State of Maharashtra, 2013(11) Scale 360 in which it has been observed that "19. As noticed hereinabove, though Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), relates to powers of Power of Attorney holder under CPC but it was concluded therein that a plaint by a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the original plaintiff is maintainable provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction in question. In a way, it is an exception to a well settled position that criminal law can be put in motion by anyone [vide Vishwa Mitter (supra)] and under the Statute, one stranger to transaction in question, namely, legal heir etc., can also carry forward the pending criminal complaint or initiate the criminal action if the original complainant dies [Vide Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v State of Maharashtra (1967) 1 SCR 807]. Keeping in mind various situations like inability as a result of sickness, old age or death or staying abroad of the payee or holder in due course to appear and depose before the Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.9 of 21 Court in order to prove the complaint, it is permissible for the Power of Attorney holder or for the legal representative(s) to file a complaint and/or continue with the pending criminal complaint for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course. However, it is expected that such power of attorney holder or legal representative(s) should have knowledge about the transaction in question so as to able to bring on record the truth of the grievance/offence, otherwise, no criminal justice could be achieved in case payee or holder in due course, is unable to sign, appear or depose as complainant due to above quoted reasons. Keeping these aspects in mind, in MMTC (supra), this Court had taken the view that if complaint is filed for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course, that is good enough compliance with Section 142 of N.I. Act. " (emphasis supplied)"
15. In the present case, no reason has been provided as to why the payee or its sole proprietor could not personally pursue this case. The entire complaint and affidavit are silent in this respect. Considering that the proprietorship concern is carrying out its business in Mahipalpur, Delhi, which is not very far from the location of this court, no reason is apparent as well. As mentioned earlier, a power of attorney was filed along with the complaint however, for reasons best known to Sh Tarundeep Singh the said power of attorney was never relied upon by him either in his affidavit or at the stage of pre or post summoning evidence. The said power of attorney does not find any mention in the list of Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.10 of 21 documents as well. There are three possible explanations for this conduct First, Inadvertence.
Second, There was no authorisation from the payee of the cheque in question for filing this complaint on his behalf since the accused had already settled this matter with him. Third, The payee wanted to keep his role ambiguous in filing of this complaint owing to settlement between him and the accused before filing of the present complaint.
16. If the second or third reason is the true reason for not tendering the said document, then the present complaint deserves dismissal without any further discussion. However, assuming that failure to tender the power of attorney was result of an inadvertence on part of Sh Tarundeep Singh or his counsel, even then, the said document is wholly unreliable and inadmissible for the following reasons:-
16.1. The alleged executor of the power of attorney i.e. Sh Kapil Sood, Proprietor of Fusion Power Systems has not averred that Sh Tarundeep Singh has personal knowledge regarding the transaction in the power of attorney.
16.2. The said power of attorney is neither notarised nor authenticated in terms of section 85 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereafter, 'Evidence Act') which provides that
85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.--The Court shall Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.11 of 21 presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 1[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2[***] of the 3[Central Government], was so executed and authenticated.
Therefore, the said document does not carry any such presumption and the complainant was bound to prove the veracity of this document. He could have easily done so by examining the witnesses to that document or the executor thereof. However, for reasons best known to the complainant no such step was taken.
16.3. Moreover, perusal of the said document shows that alleged signatures of the proprietor of the payee are more in the nature of initials and it appears that the witnesses have not signed the document but only their names have been written. Therefore, upon a prima facie perusal of the document I find the same to be quite suspicious and not worthy of being given any serious consideration.
Be that as it may, since the power of attorney has not been tendered by the witness it cannot be read into evidence. Therefore, there is nothing on record to prove that Sh Tarundeep Singh was duly authorised by the payee i.e. Fusion Power Systems or its sole proprietor to file the present complaint on his Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.12 of 21 behalf. Therefore, point for determination no. 1 gets answered in the negative. Since no prosecution under section 138 NI Act could have been launched by a stranger to the cheque in question, the complaint is bound to fail and the accused deserves an acquittal on this ground alone.
17. Once point no. 1 has been answered in the negative, any further discussion on point no. 2 and 3 shall be redundant. However, to appreciate the entire evidence which was brought on record and all the arguments advanced at the bar, I shall also analyse the fate of this case if answer to point no.1 were to be returned in the affirmative. In such a situation, it would have been incumbent to be proved that facts averred by the complainant fulfil the basic statutory requirement for constituting an offence under section 138 NI Act.
Point of determination no. 2 : Whether presumption can be raised against the accused.
18. The basic ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are the following:-
18.1. The accused must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
18.2. The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
18.3. That cheque has been presented to the bank within a Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.13 of 21 period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
18.4. That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the 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 the bank;
18.5. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
18.6. The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
Being cumulative it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under section 138 NI Act.
19. It is also apt to discuss that a negotiable instrument including a cheque carries following presumptions in terms of Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act.
Section 118 of the NI Act provides :
Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.14 of 21 "Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
(a) of consideration :- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"
Section 139 of the N.I Act further provides as follows:
"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"
Thus, the combined effect of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
20. In the present case, the accused has admitted issuing the cheque in question to the payee. He has also admitted that he had filled the material particulars on the cheque in question. He has admitted the genuineness of the returning memo as well. He has further admitted receiving the legal demand notice. These facts suffice in raising the presumption against the accused and in favour of the complainant. Therefore, point for determination no. 2 would have been answered in the affirmative.
21. When the presumption is raised in favour of the complainant, the burden is shifted on the accused to disprove the case of the complainant by rebutting the presumption. The accused can displace this presumption on the scale of preponderance of Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.15 of 21 probabilities. Lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as is the general rule in criminal cases. The accused has to make out a fairly plausible defence which is acceptable to the court. This the accused can do either by leading his own evidence or by raising doubt /demolishing the material or evidence brought on record by the complainant. Reliance can be placed on Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418.
22. Further, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. The accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence to shift the burden again on the complainant. [Refer: Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v Amin Chand Pyarelal 1999 SCCOnline SC 188 and Kumar Exports v Sharma Carpets, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1885].
23. Also, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof.
Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.16 of 21 Presumption of innocence as a human right needs to be delicately balanced with doctrine of reverse burden contained in section 139 of NI Act. [Reference can be made to Rangappa v Sri Mohan 2010 SCC OnLine SC 583 and Krishna Janardhan Bhat v Dattatreya G Hegde 2008 (4) SCC 54].
24. Having referred to the above judicial pronouncements, I shall now analyse the record in their light.
Point of determination no. 3: Whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against him.
25. In the present case the main defence of the accused is that after receiving the legal demand notice he had discussed the issue with the payee and paid Rs 2 lakhs to him on 17.11.2018. It is also his case that he was not liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs 24,000/- since the payee did not replace the faulty batteries.
26. It is correct that the accused has not been able to produce any proof with respect to returning of faulty batteries. However, CW-1 has admitted that their firm used to take cheque(s) at the time of delivery of goods. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused that after issuing the cheque he discovered that some of the batteries were faulty seems plausible.
27. Further, in support of his defence he has placed on record his whatsapp conversation with the Proprietor of the payee Sh Kapil Sood and also his bank statement. There is no dispute between the parties as far as payment of Rs 2 lakhs to the complainant on Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.17 of 21 17.11.2018 is concerned. Sh. Tarundeep Singh has admitted that such a payment was indeed received by them. The oral and documentary evidence with respect to the whatsapp conversation has also gone unrebutted. Not even a suggestion has been given to the contrary. A perusal of the said whatsapp conversation indicates that the accused has blamed the employees of the payee and the payee has not stated anything in protest. Thereafter, the accused has asked whether he should transfer Rs 2 lakhs to him and the payee has replied in the affirmative. Thereafter the receipt of payment has been confirmed between them as well. Throughout the conversation the payee has not demanded any further payment of Rs 24,000/- or any other amount from the accused. This circumstance is in sync with the defence of the accused that he was not liable to pay the entire cheque amount to the complainant. This circumstance also indicates that the payee did not have any grouse against the accused and further lends credibility to the suspicion that the complaint has been filed without his authorisation. Therefore, the point for determination no. 3 would have been answered in the affirmative.
28. In any event, given the fact that the accused had already paid Rs 2 lakhs out of Rs 2,24,000/- to the complainant, no prosecution could have been launched against him to recover the entire amount of the cheque in question. Sh. Tarundeep Singh was duty bound to disclose this fact in his complaint and seek proportionate remedy from this court. On the contrary, he has stated the following in both his complaint and affidavit:-
"That the accused has despite service of notice, Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.18 of 21 not taken any steps to liquidate his liability and has failed to make payment to the complainant towards the amount covered under the said cheque, within the period of 15 days or thereafter"
(emphasis supplied) Therefore the complaint filed by him suffers from deliberate concealment and active misrepresentation in equal measure and he has not approached this court with clean hands.
29. During the cross-examination of the accused, the complainant has tried to set up an entirely new case against the accused. Ld Counsel has argued that the accused was liable to pay some other dues to the payee and therefore the amount of Rs 2 lakhs was adjusted against such an outstanding. With due respect, I find such submissions to be without any legal merit. Perusal of the legal notice shows that it is absolutely silent with respect to any other outstanding dues other than the cheque in question. Even otherwise, when a person sends a legal notice to someone, it is but natural that any payment being made after receipt of the legal notice is being made towards the demand contained in the legal notice. Any other interpretation would lead to exponential increase in the liability of drawers of the cheque. If the argument of Ld Counsel for the accused is accepted then it would mean that the moment a person issues a cheque for part discharge of his legal liability to another the person, the payee gets a licence to receive and accept payments much beyond the amount of cheque in question and yet never report satisfaction till the time his entire debt is not discharged. The liability under section 138 NI Act is Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.19 of 21 limited to the amount mentioned on the cheque in question and it is not open to the complainant to receive the cheque amount in question before filing of the complaint and yet launch prosecution under section 138 NI Act to settle other scores with the accused.
30. It would also be pertinent to resort to the objective of section 138 NI Act. The objective of section 138 NI Act is to improve credibility of negotiable instruments and infuse faith in mercantile relations. It is for this reason that dishonour of the cheque itself hasn't been made an offence. The cause of action arises only when the drawer of the cheque fails to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal demand notice. In the present matter, the accused has approached the payee after receiving the legal demand notice and has also paid the amount which was genuinely due on him. The faith in mercantile relations stood restored by such acts of the accused. However, faith works both ways. While the drawee of the cheque shall be assured that the cheque would be encashed upon presentation the drawer also shall be assured that no false prosecution will be instituted against him on the basis of the cheque issued by him. Such faith has been breached by subsequent filing of the complaint by the complainant. If even after payment of the genuine dues to the complainant a drawer of the cheque risks being dragged into a lengthy legal battle, then it would send a message to the society that cheques should never be issued.
31. Ld Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the complainant shall be prosecuted for filing a false and malicious complaint against the accused. I have duly considered this Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.20 of 21 submission. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it expedient in the interest of justice to issue any such directions.
32. In view of the evidence adduced, documents put forth and arguments advanced by the parties and further in view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered view that the accused Sh Pankaj Jindal, Proprietor of LG Weighing Systems is not guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is hereby acquitted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open court on 19.05.2023 APOORV
APOORV BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ Date:
Judgment consists of 21 pages. 2023.05.19
16:21:11
+0530
APOORV BHARDWAJ
MM-08 (NI Act)
SOUTH WEST:DWARKA COURTS.
N.D/19.05.2023
Ct No.45353/2018 Fusion Power Systems v. LG Weighing Systems page no.21 of 21