Delhi District Court
Col. Hartaj Singh vs . Godrej Agrovet Ltd. on 12 May, 2014
Col. Hartaj Singh vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
CA No. 11/2013
ID No. 02401R0309422012
COL. HARTAJ SINGH,
Proprietor of M/s Ladakh Enterprises,
Industrial Estate,
Opposite Leh Airport,
Leh (Ladakh)
.............Appellant
versus
GODREJ AGROVET LTD.,
4/1, 4th Floor, Delite Theatre Building,
Asaf Ali Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002
Through its authorised person
..........Respondent
Date of Institution : 11.07.2012
Date of judgment : 12.05.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for appellant
Sh. S.P.Singhal, Advocate, counsel for respondent
CA No. 11/13 Page 1 of 4
Col. Hartaj Singh vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.
J U D G M E N T (ORAL):-
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated May 29, 2012 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Central-2, Delhi whereby appellant being the proprietor of M/s Ladakh Enterprises had been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (Act in short) and against the order on the point of sentence dated June 21, 2012 whereby appellant had been sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of six months and was directed to pay a compensation of ` 18 lac in default further simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. Necessary facts in brief leading to filing the present criminal appeal are that appellant is the proprietor of M/s Ladakh Enterprises and he had business dealings with the respondent. During business transactions, respondent had supplied processed foods to the appellant to the tune of ` 15,48,639/- and in discharge of his liability appellant had issued the cheque bearing No. 243426 dated November 24, 2008 in the sum of ` 15,48,639/- drawn on SBI, Panchkula. However, on presentation, the said cheque returned unpaid with the remark 'Insufficient Fund' on November 27, 2008. Thereafter, respondent had sent a legal notice to the appellant within the stipulated period. However, despite the service of legal notice, appellant failed to make the payment. Accordingly, respondent had filed the criminal complaint against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
CA No. 11/13 Page 2 of 4Col. Hartaj Singh vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.
3. After appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty vide impugned judgment and sentenced him vide impugned order as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant has filed the present criminal appeal.
4. I have heard submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
5. During the course of arguments, counsel appearing for appellant submits that he is not pressing the criminal appeal on merit and requests to take a lenient view as the matter has been settled between the parties.
6. In view of his submission, the impugned judgment whereby appellant had been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is upheld.
7. Learned counsel appearing for appellant requests for a lenient view on the ground that matter has been settled between both the parties amicably in the sum of ` 9 lac and pursuant to the settlement, appellant had already made full and final payment to the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that respondent has already received the payment in terms of the settlement, thus he has no objection if sentence be modified and appellant be released on probation of good conduct.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by counsel for both CA No. 11/13 Page 3 of 4 Col. Hartaj Singh vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.
the parties and facts that matter has been settled between both the parties amicably, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met, if the sentence be modified by releasing the appellant on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, appellant be released on probation of good conduct for a period of three months on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ` 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with condition that he shall appear and receive sentence as and when call by the Court during the said period and he shall maintain peace and be of good behavior during the said period. Appellant shall furnish the bail bond before the learned Trial Court within week's time from today.
9. In view of the above, sentence is modified, hence, present criminal appeal stands partly allowed.
10. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court immediately.
11. TCR be sent back.
12. Criminal appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court [PAWAN KUMAR JAIN]
On this 12th day of May, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge-01
Central District/THC/DELHI/sv
CA No. 11/13 Page 4 of 4