Delhi District Court
Nand Kishore vs Dinesh Kumar on 19 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
CC NO: 1538/12
Unique Case ID No:02405RO078392010
Nand Kishor
S/o Shri Ishwar Singh
R/o VPO Bharthal,
New Delhi ...............Complainant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar
S/o Late Shri Puran Mal
R/o VPO Bharthal
New Delhi ................Accused
Offence Complained of or proved : Under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of filing : 24.06.2010
Date of Institution : 25.06.2010
Date of reserving judgment/order : 02.07.2013
Final Order/Judgment : Acquitted
Date of pronouncement : 19.07.2013
JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 1 of 18
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) filed by the complainant against the accused.
2.Case of the complainant as per the complaint is that the accused had promised to complainant for government job and dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to him out of which a sum of Rs.20,000/- was delivered by the complainant to the accused on 09.02.2009 and remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was delivered on 09.08.2009 and accused promised to repay the same in the last week of March 2010 in case the accused fails to arrange the job for the complainant. As per the complaint the accused could not arrange the job for the complainant and in discharge of its liability to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, the accused issued two cheques bearing no. 976287 and 585363 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively both dated 31.03.2010 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bharthal Branch, New Delhi, which on presentation were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide return memo dated 31.03.2010 and again on 06.04.2010 and despite service of legal notice dated 05.05.2010 served by the complainant upon the accused through registered AD and UPC, the accused had failed to make payment of cheques' amount in question within stipulated period and hence the present complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused u/s 138 of the NI Act.
3. On receipt of the complaint, cognizance of the offence was taken CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 2 of 18 and accused was summoned vide order dated 25.06.2010 by the Ld Predecessor of this Court and in response to summons of the court, the accused had appeared on 20.09.2010 and was admitted to bail.
4. Subsequently, the notice u/s 251 Cr PC explaining accusations u/s 138 of NI Act was issued to the accused on 25.05.2011 to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On an application u/s 145(2) of the NI Act moved on behalf of the accused, complainant was recalled for cross examination vide order dated 25.05.2011 and the matter was fixed for complainant's evidence. Complainant has examined two witnesses in support of submissions made in the complaint including himself. Complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has adopted his affidavit Ex CW1/A which was tendered by him in pre summoning evidence, during his post summoning evidence also and has relied upon the following documents :-
Ex.CW1/1: Original cheque bearing No.585363 dated 31.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bharthal Branch in favour of the complainant.
Ex CW1/2: Original cheque bearing No.976287 dated 31.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.one lakh in favour of the complainant drawn on Syndicate Bank, Karandeep* Public School, New Delhi in favour of the complainant Ex CW1/3: Original cheque return memo dated 06.04.2010. Ex CW1/4: Original cheque return memo dated 31.03.2010 Ex CW1/5: Office copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2010.CC NO. 1538/12
Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 3 of 18 Ex CW1/6: Original postal receipt dated 05.05.2010 regarding dispatch of legal notice.
Ex CW1/7: Original UPC receipt dated 05.05.2010 regarding dispatch of legal notice to the accused.
Ex CW1/8: Reply dated 19.05.2010 given by the accused through his counsel to legal notice dated 05.05.2010.
5. The complainant has further examined one Mr Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Brahm Prakash as CW2 who was allegedly present at the time of delivery of Rs.1,20,000/- by the complainant to the accused. CW2 has tendered his affidavit Ex CW2/A in post summoning evidence on behalf of the complainant wherein it was deposed by him that the accused had promised the complainant for a government job and induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused which was delivered by the complainant to the accused in the following manner:-
"Rs.20,000/- on 09.02.2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.08.2009".
It is further deposed by him that accused assured to repay the same in the last week of March, 2010 in case, he fails to arrange the job for the complainant. According to him, the aforesaid amount was handed over by the complainant to the accused in his presence and since the accused could not arrange the job for the complainant, he, in discharge of his liability to pay the above said amount, issued two cheques Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 in favour of the complainant. Both the complainant's witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld counsel for CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 4 of 18 the accused and thereafter, on separate statement of complainant CE was closed vide order dated 11.10.2012.
6. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 21.11.2012 and matter was fixed for Defence Evidence. However, since the accused has failed to lead any defence evidence despite repeated opportunities, DE was closed vide order dated 20.02.2013 and matter was fixed for final arguments. Meanwhile, an application u/s 311 Cr PC was moved on behalf of the accused and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.03.2013.
7. On 06.04.2013 another application u/s 311 Cr PC was moved on behalf of the accused seeking direction for reopening of the defence evidence and summoning of the witness from PS Kapashera. The said application was allowed vide order dated 06.4.2013 and accordingly, HC Satbir Singh, Record Clerk from PS Kapashera was examined as DW1 and Shri Vinod S/o Shri Raj Singh, Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Bharthal Branch, New Delhi was examined as DW2. DW1 has proved the record pertaining to DD no.45B dated 18.03.2010 made in PS Kapashera and the same was endorsed as Ex DW1/A. The witness has further proved another DD entry No.29B dated 29.03.2010 which was endorsed as Ex DW1/B. DW2 has proved statement of bank account of complainant for the period 05.02.2009 to 09.08.2009 and same was endorsed as Ex DW2/A. DW1 was duly cross examined by counsel for the complainant while DW2 was not cross examined on behalf of the complainant despite opportunity having been given to him.
CC NO. 1538/12Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 5 of 18 Thereafter, on a separate statement of accused DE was closed on 08.05.2013 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. Final arguments in the case were heard from both the parties on 05.06.2013 and 02.07.2013.
9. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant has proved its case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. According to Ld counsel for the complainant, the complainant has proved the delivery of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused for meeting out the expenses for securing the Government job for the accused by examining himself as CW1 and also by examining Mr Manoj Kumar(CW2), in whose presence the amount was given by the complainant to the accused. Besides, according to him, the accused has not denied his signatures on cheques Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 and accordingly, a presumption arises in favour of the complainant that the cheques were issued by the accused in discharge of his liability towards the complainant to repay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of his failure to secure a job for the later. It is further submitted by him that the dishonour of aforesaid cheques as well as receipt of legal notice have not been disputed by the accused and since the accused has failed to make the payment of cheques amount in question despite receipt of legal notice till date, he is liable to be convicted for offence u/s 138 of the NI Act.
10. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant has failed to prove any of the ingredients of offence u/s CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 6 of 18 138 of NI Act in as much as the cheques in question were never issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and the same might have been stolen by the complainant or by CW2 as, according to him, CW2 used to forcibly enter the house of the accused for which the accused had lodged police complaints at PS Kapashera vide DD entries Ex DW1/A and Ex DW1/B. Besides, according to him, even the complainant used to frequently visit the house of the accused as both of them were on friendly terms with each other and he also might have stolen the aforesaid cheques. Further, according to him, the complainant has failed to prove the delivery of alleged amount of Rs.1,20,000/- by the complainant to the accused. It is further submitted by him that the testimony of both CW1 as well as CW2 is fraught with contradictions in as much as it was admitted by CW1 in his cross examination that name of payee in the cheque EX CW1/1 and all the entries except the signatures in cheque Ex CW1/2 were filled in by him, while it was deposed by CW2 in his cross examination that all the particulars such as date, name of payee and amount in words and figures in the cheques Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 were filled in by the accused in his presence. Further, according to him, the statement of bank account of the complainant for the period 05.02.2009 to 09.08.2009 renders the testimony of CW2 wholly unreliable in as much as while as per the statement of account Ex DW2/A no amount of Rs.20,000/- or Rs. 1,00,000/- was ever withdrawn by the complainant on or around the alleged dates of disbursal to the accused, however, CW2 has deposed CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 7 of 18 that the amount was given by the complainant to accused after withdrawing the same from his bank account in his presence. It is further contended by him that even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments that the accused had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant as a consideration for securing the Government job and has also issued the cheques Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 in favour of the complainant for repayment of the same, still the present complaint is not maintainable because the cheques can not be said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable liability towards the complainant. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is further contended by counsel for accused that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
11. Ld counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narayan 2006 (135) DLT 273 in support of his submissions while Ld counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgments in Sita Ram Vs Radha Bai AIR 1968 SC 534 and Mohd Salimuddin Vs Misri Lal and another (1986) 2 SCC 378 of Hon'ble Apex Court in rebuttal.
12. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have also perused the record including the testimonies of all the witnesses. In order to prove the case u/s 138 of NI Act the complainant was required to establish that the cheques were issued by accused in discharge of his legally enforceable liability towards the complainant and the same were dishonoured on presentation on account CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 8 of 18 of insufficiency of funds in the bank account of accused and despite service of legal notice of demand within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act, the accused had failed to make the payment of cheques amount in question to the complainant within stipulated period of 15 days. There is no dispute between the parties either regarding the presentation of cheques in question or regarding the dishonour of the same due to insufficient funds. Besides, the factum of service of legal notice and non-payment of the cheques amount in question by the accused to the complainant are also not in dispute. Moreover, A perusal of file would show that though the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question, however, he has categorically denied the issuance of same in favour of the complainant in discharge of any liability towards the later much less in discharge of any legally enforceable liability. The accused has also denied the receipt of alleged amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for securing a job for the complainant. Thus, the only issue which would arise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for determination by this Court would be whether the cheques Ex. CW-1/1 and Ex. CW-1/2 were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt or liability towards the complainant so as to attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. I shall be dealing with the aforesaid issue in the following paragraphs.
13. The complainant though has examined himself as well as CW2 Manoj Kumar to prove the payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.
CC NO. 1538/12Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 9 of 18 1,20,000/- to the accused, however, in my considered opinion, the testimony of both CW1 as well as CW2 regarding the payment of consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- is not free from doubts in as much as the complainant has failed to place on record any documentary proof such as any acknowledgment regarding receipt of aforesaid amount by the accused or any agreement to corroborate the aforesaid testimony. On the other hand, the accused has examined the witness from the complainant's bank and proved the statement of account of the complainant for the relevant period which shows that the complainant has never withdrawn any sum of Rs.20,000/- or Rs.1,00,000/- on or around the alleged dates of disbursal of amount by the complainant to the accused, thereby contradicting the testimony of CW2 to the effect that the aforesaid amount was given by the complainant to the accused in month of February 2009 and August 2009 after withdrawing the same from his bank account in his presence. Besides, the testimony of CW1 as well as CW2 regarding handing over of cheques in question by the accused to the complainant is also not free from doubts and the same is full of contradictions in as much as though, according to the complainant, the name of payee in the cheque Ex. CW1/1 and all the entries except the signatures in cheque Ex CW1/2 were filled in by him but it was deposed by CW2 in his cross examination that all the particulars such as date, name of payee and amount in words and figures in the cheques Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 were filled in by the accused in his presence. The aforesaid contradictions in the testimony of CW1 and CW2 raises CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 10 of 18 serious doubts about their veracity and even the presence of CW2 during the alleged transaction becomes highly doubtful. Besides, it is the case of the accused that CW2 has deposed falsely as he is bent upon throwing the accused out of his job and that he used to forcibly enter the house of accused for which DD entries Ex DW1/A and DW1/B had been lodged by the accused in PS Kapashera. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, the accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions, if any, arising under Sections 139 and 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of any liability or the same were issued for valid consideration and the complainant has failed to prove on record liability of the accused as well as the drawing of cheques by the accused in his favour by leading any cogent evidence.
14. Otherwise also, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the aforesaid cheques were issued by the accused in discharge of his liability towards the complainant, however, since as per the own case of complainant the consideration for issuance of the cheques was unlawful as the same were issued for repayment of amount given by the complainant as illegal gratification for securing the government job, the cheques cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable liability and as such provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act shall not be attracted in the present case. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Virender Singh v. Laxmi Narain (Supra).
CC NO. 1538/12Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 11 of 18
15. In the said case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dealing with a complaint case under section 138 of the NI Act arising out of dishonour of cheque issued for repayment of the sum received by the drawer as illegal gratification for securing a job for the complainant's nephew in Haryana police and after review of the legal position on the subject and after analyzing the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and of Sections 2(g), 10, 23 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Hon'ble High Court had come to the conclusion that such a cheque cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable liability within the meaning of Section 138 of the NI Act and as such provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act are not attracted. It would be pertinent to reproduce some of the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment at this stage. While setting out the issue arising in the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as follows:
"The question which requires to be answered is:- Whether the cheque for Rs.80,000/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 (complainant) was for the discharge of any debt or other liability? Now, the explanation in Section 138 of the said Act makes it clear that the expression "debt or other liability" has reference only to a legally enforceable debt or liability. Conversely, if a cheque is issued in respect of a debt or liability which is not legally enforceable then, Section 138 of the said Act would not apply."
16. Thereafter, after referring to the provisions of Sections 2(g), 10 CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 12 of 18 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act it was observed as follows:
An agreement which is void is not enforceable by law [see:
Sections 2(g) and 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872]. The question, therefore, is -- Was the agreement between the petitioner and the complainant for securing a job for the complainant's nephew in the Haryana Police, legally enforceable? Fortunately, the answer is provided straightaway by illustration (f) to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said illustration (f) reads as under: "(f) A promises to obtain for B an employment in the public service, and B promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful." Clearly, the facts of the present case fit into this illustration. Therefore, it can be safely stated that the agreement between the petitioner and the complainant was void as the consideration of Rs.80,000/- was in the nature of an illegal gratification and was unlawful. The next question, taking illustration (f) further, is -- B having paid A the promised sum of 1,000 rupees but, A not fulfilling his promise of obtaining for B an employment in public service, does B have a remedy in law to seek restitution and return of the 1000 rupees that he has paid to A? What is the obligation of a person who has received an advantage under a void agreement? Is A bound to return the sum of 1,000/- rupees to B?
17. Thereafter, the Court referred to the provisions of Section 65 of Indian Contract and after reviewing the legal position on the subject observed as follows:
"Clearly, a review of the legal position with regard to the scope and ambit of the said Section 65 indicates that it CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 13 of 18 would not apply to cases falling under Section 23. In other words, agreements which are void ab initio and their illegality is known to the parties at the time of execution would not fall within the purview of Section 65. An agreement of the kind mentioned in illustration (f) to Section 23 and the one at hand being void ab initio and to the knowledge of the parties would also not benefit from the equitable principle of restitution embedded in Section 65. So, neither the sum of 1,000 rupees mentioned in the said illustration (f) nor the sum of Rs.80,000/- paid in the present case is recoverable in law."
18. From the above observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that the cheques in question, even if they are assumed to have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable liability so as to attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. However, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (Supra) and Md. Salimuddin v. Misri Lal and Another (Supra). While relying on the aforesaid judgments, he submits that his case is covered under first exception to the rule of pari delicto as embodied in para 11 of judgment in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai. I find myself unable to agree with the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant as the same contention was put forth by counsel for the respondent/complainant before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Virender Singh's Case (Supra) CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 14 of 18 and the same was rejected by HMJ Badar Durrez Ahmed of Delhi High Court in the following words:
"10. In view of the clear position based on statutory provisions it is not open to set up the position in English law as crystallised in the maxim in pari delicto portior est conditio possidentis (defendentis) and then to urge that the present case falls in the category of exceptions to that rule and therefore the money illegally paid can be recovered under law."
Thereafter, while dealing with the contentions of respondent in that case after referring to both the judgments which have been relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the complainant before me also, the court observed as follows:
"12. So, if the maxim in pari delicto etc., were to apply, the complainant/ respondent No.1 could not have a claim for recovering the Rs.80,000/- paid by way of illegal gratification for securing a job for his nephew in the Haryana Police. It is here that the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 pressed into service the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of the decision of Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra), to submit that there are three exceptional circumstances to which the maxim does not apply and that the present case falls in one of those. The three classes of cases being:-
(a) Where the illegal purpose has not yet been substantially carried into effect before it is sought to recover money paid or goods delivered in furtherance of it;
(b) Where the plaintiff is not in pari delicto with the defendant ;
(c) Where the plaintiff does not have to rely on the illegality CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 15 of 18 to make out his claim.
If the facts of the present case are examined, it would be immediately clear that it does not fall in any of these three classes of cases. The first class of cases deals with situations or agreements where the object is unlawful. In the present case -- securing a job in the Haryana Police for the nephew -- is not an unlawful object. What is unlawful is the consideration paid for it. The consideration having already been paid, the illegality stood completed on the part of the respondent No.1. And, since the respondent No.1 would have to rely upon this illegality to make out his claim or enforce the same, this case does not also fall within the third class of cases mentioned above. This leaves us with the second class of cases where the parties are not in pari delicto. In Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the parties were not "in pari delicto" or, to put it differently, "in equal fault". And, in that backdrop, the Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that where the parties are not in pari delicto, the less guilty party may be able to recover money paid or property transferred, under the contract. It was further held that such a possibility could arise in three situations:-
(1) The contract may be of kind which has been made illegal by statute in the interest of a particular class of persons of whom the plaintiff is one;
(2) The plaintiff must have been induced to enter into the contract by fraud by strong pressure;
(3) The defendant is under a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and it is in connection with this fiduciary relationship that moneys have come into his hands as proceeds of a transaction albeit illegal.
None of these three situations arise in the present case. In any event, the parties in the present were pari delicto so, no investigation into whether the any of these three CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 16 of 18 situations arise is called for. The Supreme Court decision in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra) is on a different footing. There the parties were not in pari delicto and the case fell under the third situation of the fiduciary relationship referred to above."
In the subsequent para the Court while referring to the judgment in Md. Salimuddin's case (Supra) held that in that case also the parties were not in pari delicto and observed as follows:
"In the present case neither party is a victim of exploitation. Both had voluntarily and by their free will joined hands to flout the law. Therefore, in terms of the Supreme Court decisions in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra) and Mohd. Salimuddin (supra) themselves, the parties being in pari delicto, the doctrine would apply and the sum of Rs. 80,000/- could not be recovered in a court of law. Meaning thereby that there did not exist any legally enforceable debt or liability for the discharge of which it could be said that the cheque in question was issued. Consequently, Section 138 of the said Act would not be attracted."
19. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussions, in my considered opinion, though in terms of provisions of Section 23 and 65 of the Indian contract Act the right to restitution with respect to the money paid by the complainant as illegal gratification for securing a government job need not be tested on the touchstone of doctrine of pari delicto portior est conditio possidentis (defendentis) and even if it is so tested the parties in the present case being in pari delicto, the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, even if CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 17 of 18 assumed to have been paid by the complainant to the accused, cannot be recovered by the complainant in a court of law and hence the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act shall not apply to dishonour of cheques issued for repayment of the same as the present case does not fall under any of the exceptions to the aforesaid doctrine as embodied in para 11 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai, as alleged by the Counsel for complainant.
20. To sum up, the complainant has utterly failed to prove on record that the cheques in question were issued by the accused in his favour in discharge of any liability at all, much less, any legally enforceable liability and as such the accused is acquitted of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (as amended upto date).
21. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in the Open Court on this 19th day of July, 2013 (ARUN KUMAR) Metropolitan Magistrate:Dwarka Courts:
New Delhi CC NO. 1538/12 Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 18 of 18