Delhi District Court
Ram Kumar vs Ashish Verma on 18 November, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMARIII
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NORTH EAST
DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA
CC/RBT No.: 320/13
U.I.D. No. : 02402R0182582013
U/s. : 138 N.I. Act
P.S. : KARAWAL NAGAR
J U D G M E N T
1 Sl. No. of the case : 320/13
2 Date of institution of the case : 25.06.2013 3 Name of the complainant : RAM KUMAR
4. Name of accused, parentage & : ASHISH VERMA S/O SH. RAM Address KUMAR R/O F29, MILAP NAGAR, NEAR JAIN MANDIR, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
5 Offence complained of or proved : U/Sec. 138 N.I Act. 6 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 7 Date reserved for order : 30/09/14 8 Final order : Convicted 9 Date of Judgment : 28/10/14 Facts as borne out from the complaint are as follows :
1. By filing present case complainant contended that complainant and the accused are known to each other as they both are engaged CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 1 2 in the same business of silver ornaments and the accused and his father have business dealing with the complainant since last three years and they have family terms. Accused is dealing in the business of jewelers and to make his urgent business payments he required Rs.4,00,000/ in the month of March 2013.
2. It is further alleged by the complainant that accused and his father contacted the complainant on 11.3.2013 and requested the complainant to advance friendly/family loan of Rs.4,00,000/ without interest to the accused. Accused and his father assured the complainant to repay the said loan amount within ten days as the accused told the complainant that his payments were scheduled to be realized by that time. Complainant believing the words of accused and keeping in view the old relations with the accused and his father, arranged and gave the amount in cash on 13.3.2013 and 14.3.2013 to the accused upon the assurance of his father that this amount would be repaid within ten days. It is pertinent to mention here that apart from this loan amount accused have to pay amount to the complainant for goods purchased by him from the complainant.CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 2 3
3. It is further alleged that for the repayment of the friendly loan accused issued a cheque bearing No. 291384 dt. 23.3.2013 drawn on Central Bank of India Janak Puri, from his saving account No. 3029558778 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ in presence of his father at the residence of complainant at Karawal Nagar.
4. Complainant presented the cheque on 25.03.2013 with its banker, same was returned back uncashed with remarks " FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" vide returning memo dt. 28.3.2013.
5. The complainant made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a demand notice dated 27.04.2013 to accused through regd. AD post receipt No. ED731343870IN. But he failed to make the payment of the said amount to complainant within 15 days of receipt of the said Demand Notice. Thereafter, complainant has filed this complainant U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the Act") against the accused.
6. Upon institution of the complaint, presummoning evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C was led by the complainant. After considering CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 3 4 the material and the presummoning evidence on record, the accused was ordered to be summoned vide order dated 25.06.2013 to face trial for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
7. Upon being served with the summons, the accused entered appearance. Subsequent thereto notice under section 251 Cr.P.C.
for the offence under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was served upon him on 07.11.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. After service of notice upon the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C.; the matter was posted for complainant's evidence. During the course of complainant's evidence, the complainant got himself examined as the sole witness. The complainant's evidence was closed on 27.01.2013.
9. After conclusion of complainant's evidence, statement of accused was recorded on 17.02.2014 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused stated that the cheque in question was given to the CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 4 5 complainant by him as he purchased silver ornaments of Rs.75,500/ before three days of Deepawali 2012 and at that time complainant asked him to give a blank cheque as he told him that as and when the rate of silver in the market shall be open, he deposit the cheque after calculation of of the value of article and filled the cheque as per market rates and that there was no legal liability in respect of the same. The accused opted to lead defence evidence and in defence evidence, accused examined himself as DW1 and closed his evidence on 18/7/2013.
10.I have heard the rival submissions at Bar and have gone through the records of this case.
11.To constitute an offence under Section 138 N. I. Act it has to be proved that:
a) there was a legally enforcible debt.
b) that the cheque was drawn in discharge of whole or any part of debt or liability.
c) that the cheque so issued has been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
d) that the demand notice was duly served on the accused CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 5 6 and despite that he failed to make payment.
12.The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 raises two presumptions; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118
(a) therein and, secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. Presumptions, both under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act, are rebuttable in nature. The burden is squarely upon the accused to rebut the presumptions and discharge the onus placed upon him to show that the cheque was not against any liability. It is a settled law that for this purpose, the accused is not required to enter the witness box in order to discharge the burden of proof that the law places upon him. In the case reported as "Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan 2010 (5) SCALE 340", it has been held by a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court that consideration attached to a cheque is a matter of presumption and the complainant is not required to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
13.The question that naturally arises is as to what is the standard of proof that the law requires and which the accused is expected to discharge in order to rebut the presumptions. In criminal matters, the standard of proof upon the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt. CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 6 7 However, the accused in order to rebut the presumption(s) against him is not required to conclusively establish his case. The burden of proof on accused in rebutting the presumption(s) is not as high as that of the prosecution. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment reported as Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 CriLJ 4647. It is also a settled principle that where the accused has discharged the initial burden of rebutting the presumptions; the burden of proof shifts to the complainant. And whether or not the accused has discharged the onus of proof placed upon him would depend entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard the judgment of the Apex Court in M. S. Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 3366 can be fruitfully referred to.
14.Moreover presumption of law in favour of payee/ holder in due course of cheque to the effect that cheque was received in discharge of a debt or liability is a mandate of law, though it is rebuttable presumption. It is again settled law that standard of proof to discharge the onus of rebuttal upon the accused is not that vigorous as is upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused can discharge onus by probabilizing defence by preponderance of probabilities but then probabilizing of defence has to be on the basis of some evidence and material before the court.
CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 7 8 APPRICIATION OF FACTS,EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
15.Prior to proceed further it is not out of mention here that in the present case at the time of notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C in writing admitted that cheque in question Ex.CW1/A has been signed by him, cheque has been returned back dishonoured on account of "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" vide returning memo Ex.CW1/B and accused admitted the service of legal notice dt. 27/4/2013 Ex.CW1/C and filed an application u/sec. 145 (2) N.I Act seeking permission to contest the present case on the ground that accused have no legal liability towards the cheque in question allegedly issued by him. However, it is matter of fact which is admitted that accused and complainant were known to each other because of dealing with the same business, during the course of business accused had purchased goods of silver ornaments from the complainant for sum Rs. 75,673/ and given blank signed cheque as security purpose which is subject matter of the present case, in the good faith but despite the fact that the accused had repaid the said amount of Rs.75,673/ to the complainant and demand to return the cheque in question, same has not been CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 8 9 returned by the complainant on the ground that cheque has been misplaced somewhere and not traceable and as and when it will be traceable it will be returned to the accused. Subsequently present complaint has been filed to extort money from the accused which was allowed and opportunity of crossexamination of the complainant has been given.
16.During the crossexamination of CW1 several question has been put which were answered as under:
Q: Can you produce any document which can suggest or establish that shop situated in Rangpuri was or is being run by the accused and his father?
Ans. Same was answered by the complainant in affirmative, i.e "Yes", and witness produced one visiting card which is Ex.CW1/D1.
It is further deposed that it is correct to suggest that in the visiting card, name of the father of accused has not been mentioned. It is correct that I have not placed any bill/receipt to the business transaction with the accused. It is correct to suggest that accused never deal with me in any respect that is why I could not produce CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 9 10 the bills/receipts in the business transaction with the accused. Loan of Rs. 4,00,000/ has not been shown in the Income Tax Return. I have not obtained any receipt etc., except the cheque in question from the accused while giving him loan.
17.Further it is deposed that amount of Rs.4,00,000/ has been withdrawn by me from my banker on 13/1432013 and disbursed or paid in cash to the accused because after considering the request, initially complainant intended to disburse the loan amount through cheque, but accused and his father denied with the request to give the loan amount in cash in as much as cheque are likely to be released/cleared in 34 days, to the accused in presence of his father. It is incorrect to suggest that Ex.CW1/A has been forged and misused by me. It is in correct to suggest that accused have no liability of the loan amount as alleged in the present case i.e for repayment of Rs.4,00,000/. It is incorrect to suggest that in order to extort money complainant has filed the present case. CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 10 11
18.During crossexamination one document i.e receipt dt. 25.12.2012 also filed which is Ex.CW1/D2 which was denied by the complainant while stating that above document does not belongs to him even not in his hand writing.
19.On the other hand accused examined himself as DW1 and reproduced all the contents as mentioned in application u/sec. 145 (2) N. I Act. , reply to notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C and explanation given in statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. During crossexamination accused himself admitted that he has to pay Rs. 75,673/ to the complainant and also admitted that " It is correct that in my application u/sec. 145(2) N. I Act I have mentioned that I had purchased silver goods from the complainant worth Rs.75,673/ and at that time I was not having cash and gave blank signed cheque to the complainant and also deposed that he had repaid Rs.75,673/ to the complainant and demanded back the cheque in question to be returned which was not returned by the complainant on the pretext that same has been misplaced and is not traceable. During crossexamination he also admitted that he sent reply to the legal notice Ex.DW1/DX.
CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 11 12
20.After taking into consideration the facts, evidence and arguments of the parties I am of the considered view that so far as the defence qua the document Ex.CW1/D2 is concerned, i.e Kachi receipt in which the transaction of Rs.75,673/ has been shown vide dt. 25.12.2012, is not relevant because in reply to the legal notice Ex.DW1/DX. Nothing whisper in respect to the fact that accused has purchased silver goods from the complainant even no as such date 25.12.2012 for sum of Rs.75,673/.
21.Bare perusal of the reply to the legal notice Ex.DW1/DX, defence has been taken as under :
i). accused used to purchase silver ornament from the complainant up to Rs.5000/ to Rs.10,000/ which was used to pay in cash;
ii) At the time of Karwa Chauth Festival accused visited the shop of complainant and purchased ornaments for Rs.25,000/ and paid the amount by way of cheque which was duly encashed ;
iii). No loan as alleged has been taken for Rs.4,00,000/ for the requirement of business CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 12 13 as such contention of complainant is totally false, concocted;
iv). On the occasion of Deepawali accused purchased some silver ornaments for Rs.15,000/ and at that time complainant won over the confidence of the accused therefore handed over the blank sign cheque to the complainant on the pretext prices of silver are likely to go down in future and at that time complainant shall present the cheque of the accused after filling the market rate of silver, to which accused has agreed;
Lastly complainant has misused the said cheque in question and filed false present case.
22.After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances I am of the further considered view that accused have taken so many different stand to contest the present case as reveals from the bare perusal of the document Ex.DW1/DX as well as stand taken during crossexamination of CW1.
CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 13 14
23.So far as the first defence taken in reply to the legal notice Ex.DW1/DX is concerned, in reply accused contended to purchase ornaments up to Rs.5000/ to Rs.10,000/ whereas while contesting the present case he relied upon document Ex.CW1/D2 in which amount of purchase of silver ornaments is Rs.75,673/.
24.In respect to the 2nd defence no evidence qua the payment through cheque of Rs.25,000/ has been led by the accused which can substantiate the contents of reply to legal notice where as present case has been contended that he used to purchase goods in cash.
25.So far as the third defence is concerned, during crossexamination CW1 accused has put question in respect to the loan of Rs.Four Lacs which was answered by CW1 in affirmative that loan has been arranged by the complainant after withdrawal for the same from his bank on 13/14.3.2013 despite that no rebuttal evidence has been led by the accused to call details from the complainant bank to disprove the statement of complainant.
26.Lastly but not least defence which is taken that cheque in question CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 14 15 was given/handed over to the complainant on the occasion of Deepawali where as in application u/sec. 145(2) N.I Act defence has been taken and also placed the document is that cheque in question has been given against purchase of Rs. 75,673/ for which payment has been made subsequently.
27.Bare perusal of the document Ex.CW1/D2 it reveals that document have been executed on 25/12/2012 moreover CW1 has denied for execution of document despite that no rebuttal evidence in this regard has been placed and the last defence which accused has taken is that cheque in question has been misused but no explanation has been given why he kept silent till receiving of legal notice Ex.CW 1/C and even otherwise while he has not taken any action through Ex.DW1/DX to any competent authority to take appropriate action against the complainant.
28.Here it is not out of mention to place that during answering to notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C accused simply admitted his signatures on cheque in question and in application u/sec. 145(2) N.I Act it is contended that cheque in question have been given towards the CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 15 16 security of Rs. 75,673/ but did not led any cogent evidence why figure has not been filled up in the cheque and what was the reason for handing over the signed blank cheque to the complainant.
29.Moreover as per section 138 of N.I Act there is presumption of law in favour of payee/ holder in due course of cheque to the effect that cheque was received in discharge or debt or liability is mandate of law, though it is rebuttable presumption. It is again settled law that standard of proof to discharge the onus of rebuttal upon the accused is not that vigorous as is upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused can discharge onus by probabilizing defence by preponderance of probabilities but then probabilizing of defence has to be on the basis of some evidence and material before the court. Reliance can also be place on judgment reported as " V.S. YADAV VS REENA 2010(4) JCC (NI) 323" wherein Hon'ble High court held as under:
"Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 secs. 138,139 and Cr.P.C., 1973251 281Dishonour of chequeAcquittal by Ld. M.M on the ground that the complainant had failed to prove that the cheques were issued by the CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 16 17 respondents against a liability i.e refund of loan Appeal against It must be remembered that reasoning for appreciating evidence does not mean that reasoning bereft of logic Reasoning also does not mean mis reasoning All reasoning must stand the test of basic logic of judicial mind showing that the judge had knowledge of law and had appreciated facts in the light of law The order of payment by person to the holder of cheque is not made in casual manner just for sake of fundThis order is made for consideration and that is why Sec.139 N.I Act provides that holder of cheque is presumed to have received the cheque in discharge of whole or in part of a debt or liability In this regard case no evidence was produced b the accused and the Trial court travelled extra steps not permitted by law to presume that the presumption has stood rebutted Therefore, the judgment act aside and the accused convicted.
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 Sec.138/139Dishonour of cheque Presumption under sec. 139 Rebuttal of Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under sec. 139 N.I Act In order to rebut the CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 17 18 presumption under sec. 139, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstances under which cheque 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 cheque Unless the accused had proved that the acted like a normal businessman / prudent person entering into a contract he could not have rebutted the presumption u/sec. 139 N.I Act Nothing was proved in this case Judgment of acquittal set aside."
Further it was held that :
"It must be borne in mind that the statement of accused under sec. 281 Cr.P.C or under sec. 313 Cr.P.C is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under sec. 281 Cr.P.C or 313 Cr.P.C cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstances and not as evidence.
There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful. In the present, the accused in his statement stated that he had given cheques as security. If the accused CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 18 19 wanted to prove this, he was supposed to appear in the witness box and testify and get himself subjected to crossexamination. His explanation that he had the cheques as security for taking loan from the complainant but no loan was given should not have been considered by the Trial Court as his evidence and this was liable to be rejected since the accused did not appear in the witness box to dispel the presumption that the cheques were issued as security. Mere suggestion to the witness that cheques were issued as security or mere explanation given in the statement of accused under sec. 281 Cr.P.C that the cheques were issued as security, does not amount to proof. Moreover, the Trial Court seemed to be obsessed with idea of proof beyond reasonable doubt forgetting that offence under sec. 138of N.I Act was a technical offence and the complainant is only supposed to prove that the cheques issued by the respondent were dishonoured, 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 CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 19 20 evidence."
It was further held that :
"The respondent has placed reliance on 'Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hedge, 2008 (1) JCC(NI) 50: 2008 Crl. L. J.1172', which is also the case relied upon by the Trial Court. In this judgment itself Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that Court should not be blind to the ground realities and the rebuttal of presumption under sec. 139of N.I Act would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case. The Trial Court in this case turned a blind eye to the fact that every accused facing trial, whether under sec. 138 of N.I Act or under any penal law, when charged with the offence, pleads not guilty and takes a stand that he has not committed the offence. Even in the cases where loan is taken from a bank and the cheques issued to the bank stand dishonoured, the stand taken is same. Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the chequ4es were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under sec. 139 of N.I Act. If mere statement under sec. 313 Cr.P.C or under sec. 281 Cr.P.C of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/prosecution, then CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 20 21 every accused has to be acquitted. But, it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption under sec.
139of N.I Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstances under which 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 cheque. 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/sec. 139 N.I Act. If no loan was given, but cheques were retained, he immediately would have protested and asked the cheques to be returned and if still cheques were not returned, he would have served a notice as complainant.
Nothing was proved in this case.
30.Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in V.RAJA KUMARI VS SUBBARMANA NAIDU cited as 2004 X AD (SC) 433" wherein it was held that :
"......The Principle incorporated in S. 27 of General Clause Act can profitably be imported in a case where the send has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to 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 CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 21 22 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....."
DECISION AND REASONING
31. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that in the present case all the four ingredients have been proved by the complainant beyond reasonable doubt as such I am of the considered opinion that accused has failed to rebut the presumption and essential ingredients of the offence stands proved.
32.For the above reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that offence for charge under Section 138/142 N. I. Act against accused stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly convicted under Section 138 N. I. Act. Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 11/11/2014.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Dated : 28th Oct., 2014 (RAKESH KUMARIII) CMM, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 22 23 IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMARIII : CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NORTH EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA
CC/RBT No.: 320/13
U.I.D. No. : 02402R0182582013
U/s. : 138 N.I. Act
P.S. : KARAWAL NAGAR
18.11.2014
ORDER ON THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE :
Present : Complainant in person with counsel Sh. Love Kumar.
Convict with counsel Mr. Vinod Kumar
1. Vide separate judgment passed and announced in the open court on 28/10/2014, accused was held guilty and convicted for an offence under section 138 N.I. Act. Case was fixed for arguments on the point of sentence.
2. I have heard the convict and his counsel on the Point of Sentence.
3. It is argued by Ld counsel that convict is aged 23 years old and has no previous involvement or antecedents. It is stated that convict is having one brother and two sisters, old age parents and now a days CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 23 24 he is working with his uncle at his shop and earning Rs.5000/ p.m . His father is doing the shop of silver jewellary. Ld. Counsel requests for taking lenient view against the convict.
4. An application on behalf of accused filed u/sec. 360 Cr.P.C r/w section 3&4 of Probation Offenders Act and report from Probation office as well as from SHO P.S Karawal Nagar received.
5. It is further submitted that in case convict is sent to judicial custody social stigma will also affect the life of the convict as he is having a lot of respect in the family and society. It is further submitted that convict has already faced the trauma of trial for last one year and on account of conduct of convict, he may be released on probation as provided under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Lastly it is submitted that lenient view may be taken against convict while passing order on sentence in the interest of justice.
6. Opposed by Ld. counsel for complainant stating that convict be punished with maximum punishment and she do not deserve any leniency. Adequate compensation has been prayed to be given to the complainant by Ld. counsel for complainant.CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 24 25
7. I have heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for convict and have perused the record. Liability in this case has already been proved during the trial and the payment is pending in this case since nine years.
8. Since the probation report in the present case has been called from SHO concerned as well as Probation office which are in favour of the accused,having considered the above said facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that convict has no previous criminal background, report of Probation Officer and SHO in favour of convict, hence it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct and behaviour.
Further no purpose shall be served to award the sentence either to fine or imprisonment, keeping inview the young age of the accused who is 23 years old and also keeping inview the fact that he should given opportunity to reform himself. Hence in the interest of justice, benefit of Probation is granted to the convict u/sec. 4 of Probation of Offender's Act subject to his furnishing bond of good behaviour and maintaining peace, for sum of Rs.50,000/ with one surety in the like amount for the period of two year. Further Rs.4,00,000/(Rupees Four Lacs) as compensation/cheque amount is awarded in favour of the complainant which has to be paid within one month failing which he shall further under go simple imprisonment for two years and compensation shall be recovered as revenue of the CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 25 26 State.
9. Convict is directed to appear before Probation Officer at least once in every three months or as and when directed. He is also directed to maintain peace and be of good behaviour during probation period. Probation bond furnished, and accepted.
10.Copy of judgment and order on the point of sentence be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room after all necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Dated : 18th November 2014 (RAKESH KUMARIII) CMM, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 26 27 CC No. 320/13, RAM KUMAR VS ASHISH VERMA 27