Delhi District Court
M/S Hero Fincorp Ltd vs Deepak Mahendra Urf Kaaluram on 2 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT AGGARWAL,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, N.I. ACT,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CT Case no. 26523/2019
PS - Safdarjung Enclave
u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 26523/2019
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.08.2019
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : After 15th day of service of legal
demand notice issued by complainant
D. NAME OF THE : M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd.
COMPLAINANT Corporate Office at
Building no.3, 2nd Floor,
Basant Lok,
Vasant vihar, New Delhi - 110057
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram
S/o Sh.Mahendra Kaaluram
R/o H.No.76, NH 58 Adella Patti
Near Mata Ka Mandir Barla Tehsil,
Muzaffarnagar,
Near Mata Ka Mandir 8859500921,
Muzaffarnagar, - 251307,
Uttar Pradesh
F. OFFENCE : u/s 138 NI Act
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Conviction
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 02.04.2024
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 1 of 17 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" or "NI Act"). Accused was summoned by this court to face the trial vide order dated 29.01.2020.
2. Briefly stated, it is alleged by the complainant that the complainant is a non-banking finance company and the accused approached the complainant company with request for taking financial assistance for two wheeler/used car/LPL loan and the loan amount of Rs.44,175/- was disbursed to the accused as per the agreement vide loan no. MUATWL00100000671079 dated 29.01.2016.
It is alleged that in discharge of his liability to repay the loan, accused issued a cheque bearing no.111132 dated 17.06.2019 for Rs.22,858/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as "cheque in question"). It is further stated that cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 19.06.2019 for the reason "funds insufficient". It is further alleged that the complainant issued legal demand notice dated 17.07.2019 to the accused through speed post which was duly served upon the accused on 25.07.2019 and despite service, no response was issued by the accused and no payment was made. Accordingly, it is prayed that accused be punished for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act.
3. The accused was summoned vide order dated 29.01.2020 and notice was framed against the accused u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act vide order dated 25.02.2023. The accused pleaded not guilty and CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 2 of 17 claimed trial. The accused admitted execution of the cheque in question and denied the handwriting therein. He admitted receipt of loan of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant in 2016 and he further admitted that the said loan was to be re- paid by way of 24 installments of Rs.2,329/- each. He further stated that he has paid Rs.24,780/- to the complainant including file charge in cash and thereafter, dispute arose with the complainant. He stated that thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the parties and an amount of Rs.13,974/- remained to be paid by him. He denied the receipt of legal notice and admitted that the same bears his correct address.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES:-
4. The complainant in order to prove its case, examined its authorized representative Sh.Paras Gupta as CW-1 in his evidence led before the court. CW- 1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/X and relied upon the following documents:-
i. Ex. CW1/A is copy of SPA issued by the complainant;
ii. Ex.CW1/B is cheque in question bearing no.111132 dated 17.06.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chhapar, Muzafarnagar, UP;
iii. Ex.CW1/C is return memo dated 19.06.2019 iv. Ex.CW1/D is legal notice dated 17.07.2019 v. Ex.CW1/E is postal receipt qua legal notice ;
vi. Ex.CW1/F is internet generated tracking report; and vii. Mark CW1/H is statement of account.
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 3 of 17 Upon his cross-examination, CW1 inter-alia deposed that the loan was disbursed on 22.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.44175/- and the same was to be repaid in 24 EMIs of Rs.2,329/- each. He further stated that no security cheque was taken from the accused and the cheque in question was issued in June, 2019 for clearance of the loan and for obtaining NOC i.e. No Objection Certificate. He further stated that 13 EMIs were cleared out of 24 EMIs.
5. Thereafter, on 18.10.2023, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded whereby he inter alia stated that he has repaid the loan amount and complainant has still not returned the cheques. He denied execution of the cheque in question and stated that he had given 3 blank unsigned cheques to the complainant. He further stated that he did not receive the legal notice.
6. In his defence, accused examined himself as DW1 on 19.01.2024. He deposed that he approached the complainant for purchase of a bike and he paid Rs.23,700/- in cash to the complainant company and obtained a loan of Rs.44,000/-. He further deposed that he wanted to return the bike to the complainant but they refused and later his father made total payment of Rs.25,000/- in 2018 to the complainant and yet the complainant did not return his cheques. He denied execution of the cheque in question and deposed that the complainant did not issue any payment receipt to him. He also filed the account opening form and deposed that the signature does not match with the signatures in the bank.
Upon his cross-examination, he deposed that he took a loan of Rs.40,000/- and he had given EMI payment in March, 2016 and thereafter, he did not give CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 4 of 17 any payment to the complainant as he wanted to return the bike. He further stated that he did not make any complaint against the complainant as he is an illiterate person and complainant took blank unsigned cheques from him.
7. Final arguments were heard from both the sides at length and record was perused.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PARTIES AND FINDINGS THEREON:-
8. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant advanced a loan of Rs.44,175/- to the accused vide loan agreement dated 29.01.2016 and cheque in question was issued towards the payment of the said loan. It was further argued that accused has taken false stands during the trial and he has not given any evidence for repayment of loan. It was further argued that the cheque in question bears the same signature of the accused as on all the documents in the file and he has taken contradictory stands during the trial. He further argued that accused has admitted execution of the cheque and accordingly, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act is liable to be drawn in favour of the complainant. He further argued that accused has been unable to rebut the presumption of law u/s 139 of the NI Act and accordingly, he must be convicted.
9. Per contra, Ld.Counsel for accused/ Ld. Legal Aid Counsel argued that complainant has misused the cheque of the accused and the loan has been already repaid by the accused. He further argued that accused has rebutted the presumption of law and he must be acquitted in the present case.
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 5 of 17 DECISION WITH REASONS:-
10. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed. Section 138 of the Act provides as under:
Section 138.- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 6 of 17 Explanation -- for the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
11. It is well settled position of law that to constitute an offence under S.138 N.I. Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(A) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
(B) cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (C) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (D) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount, (E) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 7 of 17 covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
Therefore, 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 of the N I Act.
12. The Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e., complainant in the present case; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) therein and, secondly, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
13. Analyzing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983, noted as follows:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 8 of 17
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
14. To put in nutshell, the law regarding the presumption for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 have to be compulsorily raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, that the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. The onus to prove the issuance of the cheque lies upon the complainant, and the same has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, unless the accused admits the same. Once the issuance of cheque is established, either by admission or by positive evidence, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act comes into play.
15. As per s. 139 of the Act 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. Therefore, here the onus shifts upon the accused to prove the non-existence of debt or other liability. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 uses the word "shall presume", which means that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable. The standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under Section 139 is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 9 of 17 is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, the onus shifts back to the complainant to prove by way of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge, whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. If the accused is able to raise a probable defence, then the presumptions under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 will not come to the aid of the complainant. For this purpose, the accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not supported by consideration, and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.
16. At the same time, it is clear that a bare denial of passing of consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. 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 the 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 circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. From the legal provisions and the law laid down in various judgments, it can be safely gathered that it is for the accused to rebut the presumptions. He can do so by cross examining the complainant, or by leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant. It is amply clear that the accused does not need to discharge his or her liability beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He just need to create holes in the case set out by the complainant and create a reasonable doubt over the version put forth by the complainant.
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 10 of 17
17. In the present case, while framing of the notice on 25.02.2023, accused admitted execution of the cheque in question. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid principles of law, the presumption regarding existence of a legal liability u/s 139 of the NI Act is available to the complainant in the present case and it has to be seen whether the accused has been able to rebut the said presumption or not.
18. Briefly stated, it the case of the complainant that complainant gave a loan to the accused of Rs. 44,175/- as per loan agreement dated 29.01.2016. It is further the case of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued towards part payment of the said loan and the same was got dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused vide return memo dated 19.06.2019.
19. On the other hand, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and he further admitted receipt of loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant in the year 2016. The accused also admitted that the said loan was to be repaid by the accused by way of 24 installments of Rs. 2329/- each. The accused further took the defence that he has paid Rs.24,780/- to the complainant and at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2023, he also stated that an amount of Rs.13,974/- remains to be paid by him to the complainant.
20. Complainant has led evidence of Sh. Paras Gupta, Authorized Representative of the complainant company as CW-1. Accused has led his own evidence in his defence. Therefore, it has to be seen whether accused has been able to rebut the presumption on the basis of cross examination of complainant's CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 11 of 17 witness, the evidence led by him in his defence or by pointing out the flaws in the complainant's case or other circumstances on the record.
21. The accused has admitted execution of the cheque in question and he has further admitted receipt of the loan from the complainant. The accused has only disputed the quantum of loan by alleging that he has obtained the loan of Rs. 40,000/- and not Rs.44,175/- as alleged by the complainant. It is noticeable herein that during framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2023, accused admitted execution of the cheque in question whereas while his statement was being recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 18.10.2023, he denied execution of the cheque in question and stated that he had given blank unsigned cheque to the complainant. Therefore, record prima facie reflects that the accused has taken extremely contradictory stands in his defence in the present case and therefore, the version of the accused does not inspire much confidence of the Court.
22. During the trial, the accused took different versions qua the execution of the cheque in question and he has failed to explain throughout the trial as to why the execution of the cheque in question was admitted at the first instance of the trial. It is further noticeable that accused has failed to offer any explanation regarding his contradictory stands existing on record which makes his version difficult to believe.
23. Bare perusal of the signatures of the accused on the cheque in question when compared with the admitted signatures of the accused while exercising the powers under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shows that accused has himself executed the cheque in question. The signatures of the accused on the CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 12 of 17 notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C or his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C or his statement of his defence recorded on 19.01.2024 or on the applications filed by him before the Court shows that the signatures on the cheque in question matches with such signatures of the accused. Even otherwise, accused admitted execution of the cheque in question during framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2023 and therefore, presumption u/s 138 of NI Act is liable to be drawn against the accused and in favor of the complainant.
24. Accused has denied receipt of the legal notice Ex.CW1/D. However, he admitted that the legal notice bears his correct address during framing of notice and recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The complainant has proved on record legal notice Ex.CW1/D and the speed post receipt Ex.CW1/E. As per the internet generated tracking report qua the legal notice, the same was delivered to the accused on 25.07.2019. It is the defence of accused that he did not receive the legal demand notice.
25. Accused has failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to show that he was not residing at the address stated in the demand notice at the relevant time. It is further noticeable that the address of the accused stated in the present complaint is the same address mentioned on the legal notice Ex.CW1/D and the accused entered appearance in this Court on 23.01.2023 when the bailable warrants were issued by this Court on the very same address stated in the legal notice. Further, the accused has himself stated the very same address shown in the legal notice issued by the complainant, while framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2023 and while recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.10.2023. It is apparent that the accused himself has failed to prove on record that he was CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 13 of 17 residing at the address different from the one mentioned in the legal demand notice throughout the trial. In the landmark judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Mohd. & Anr." reported in {(2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 555}, it has been held that :-
" A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court alongwith the copy of complaint Under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required Under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary Under Section 27 of G. C. Act and 114 of the Evidence Act".
26. So, in light of abovesaid judgment and discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the statement of the accused, that he had not received any legal demand notice is without any force and is hereby rejected. Even otherwise, accused appeared in this Court on the very next date of hearing after bailable warrants were issued to him upon the address stated in the legal notice itself.
27. Accused did not issue any response to the legal notice Ex.CW1/D despite receipt thereby an inference can be drawn that he does not dispute the allegations made in the legal notice. At this stage, it is relevant to rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, [(2010) 11 SCC 441], which are reproduced below:-
29.Coming back to the facts in the present case, we are in agreement with the High Court's view that the accused did not raise a probable defence. As noted earlier, the defence of the loss of a blank cheque was taken up belatedly and the accused had mentioned a different date in the "stop payment" instructions to his Bank. Furthermore, the instructions to "stop payment" had not even mentioned that the cheque had been lost. A perusal of the trial record also shows that the accused appeared to be aware of the fact CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 14 of 17 that the cheque was with the complainant. Furthermore, the very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. Apart from not raising a probable defence, the appellant-accused was not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. (emphasis supplied)
28. Accused argued that the loan was only to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and not Rs.44,175/- as alleged by the complainant. However, it is noticeable that such allegations of the accused have remained completely unproved and unsubstantiated on record. The accused has taken vague and contrary stands and he failed to prove the quantum of loan taken as alleged by him. The accused also failed to prove that he or his father has made payment of the entire sum to the complainant and he further failed to prove that he has made payments in cash to the complainant. The account opening form filed by the accused i.e Ex. DW1/A does not come to the aid of the accused as neither the same was proved in accordance with law nor it negates the admission qua execution of the cheque in question by the accused at the first instance of the trial.
29. The accused has not led any cogent or positive evidence on record to create any sort of doubt over the allegations of the complainant in the present complaint. Even otherwise, bare perusal of the documents filed on record and relied upon by the complainant shows that there is no merit in the dispute regarding quantum of loan raised by the accused. Further, the record shows that accused failed to prove his allegations that his father made payment of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant in 2018. The entire record shows that accused has merely taken bald defences without any substance to the same.
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 15 of 17
30. The accused has not filed any complaint against the complainant despite knowledge of the fact that his precious cheque may be misused by the complainant. The version of the accused that he had given three blank unsigned cheques to the complainant does not appear to be true. Even in common practice, such unsigned cheques are not taken by the lender and it is usually the signed cheques which are taken for security to ensure repayment of loan. The accused has miserably failed to explain as to why did he give blank unsigned cheques to the complainant. Such version of the accused does not appear to be truthful and lacks merit and does not inspire any confidence of this court.
31. Merely because there is no loan agreement or receipt, a probable defence is not raised in favour of the accused so as to rebut the presumption of law. The court has to consider the surrounding circumstances and the factual situation of the case before concluding that the onus has shifted upon the complainant and the presumption has been rebutted successfully by the accused. In the considered opinion of this court, accused has not been able to create any credible doubt over the existence of the alleged loan and accused has not been able to raise a "probable defence" in his favour. Even otherwise, accused did not lead any cogent and creditworthy evidence to rebut the presumption of law in favour of the complainant and he failed to point out the fallacies in the case set up by the complainant in order to rebut the presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities.
32. The accused was required to prove that he has made repayment of the admitted loan towards the complainant and that the ingredients of the alleged CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 16 of 17 offence are not fulfilled by the complainant. Accused has miserably failed to place on record any material evidence to prove the fact that the loan was only of Rs.40,000/-. He further failed to point out any complaint against complainant for non return of his precious cheques. Accused was required to prove non existence of liability/ debt by either direct evidence or by bringing on record his defence, on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, but he has failed to do so.
33. In view of the provision of section 139 of the Act r/w Section 118 of the Act, the Court has to presume that cheques have been issued for discharging debt or liability. The said presumption which is rebuttable could be rebutted by accused by proving the contrary. For shifting the burden, accused had to prove his defence by preponderance of probabilities whereas he has completely failed to do so. Comprehensive perusal of the evidence led on record shows that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant and he has failed to create any doubt over the case put forth by the complainant.
34. Accordingly, this court holds the accused guilty and the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of the cheques in question.
35. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict against Digitally signed receiving. BHARAT by BHARAT AGGARWAL Date: AGGARWAL 2024.04.03 05:26:12 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 02.04.2024 MM-01/N.I.Act/South/Saket/Delhi 02.04.2024 Present judgment consists of 17 pages and each page bears my initials.Digitally signed by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Bharat Aggarwal)
Date: 2024.04.03
05:26:22 +0530
MM-01/N.I.Act/South/Saket/Delhi
02.04.2024
CT No. 26523/2019 u/s 138 NI Act M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Deepak Mahendra urf Kaaluram Page no. 17 of 17