Delhi District Court
M/S Mcf Finlease Pvt. Ltd vs . on 24 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
(SPL. NI COURT )14 DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
M/s MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Vijay Kumar
C.C. No.949/14
P.S.: Vikas Puri U/s 138 N.I. Act
JUDGEMENT
a) Date of commission of offence: 22.09.2012
b) Name of Complainant M/s MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. through its director S.P. Chawla. B204, Vikas Tower, Community Centre, Vikaspuri, New Delhi110018.
c) Name of the accused and Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, R/o Address: A689, Mahavir Enclave, PartII, Gali No.18, New Delhi110059.
d) Offence complained of: U/s 138 N.I. Act e) Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty f) Final order: Conviction g) Date of order: 24.02.2014 h) Date of institution of case: 28.09.2012 i) Date of decision of case: 24.02.2014
CC No.949/14; MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Page 1 of 6 2 Brief facts and reasons for decision of the case:
1. The present case been instituted upon a complaint made by MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'the complainant') against Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred as 'the accused'), alleging that a loan against property in sum of 90,000/ was provided to the accused in May, 2009. The loan was repayable in 24 installments in Sum of Rs.5,250/ each. The accused had paid 14 installments and for the remaining with overdue interest charges, a cheque bearing no.'623826' dated 18.07.2012 in sum of Rs.70,000/ (Ex.CW1/8) was issued. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons and remarks 'Account is inoperative/dormant' vide bank memo dated 19.07.2012 (Ex.CW1/9). On receipt of intimation of dishonour, a legal demand notice dated 13.08.2012 (Ex.CW1/10) was dispatched to the accused via registered post of even date (postal and courier receipts are Ex.CW1/11 to Ex.CW1/14). It is alleged that the payment was not made good within the statutory period despite service of notice. Hence, the present complaint u/s. 138 N.I. Act has been filed.
CC No.949/14; MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Page 2 of 6 3
2. During the complainant's evidence, Sh. S.P. Chawla, director of MCF Finelease Pvt. Ltd. (authorized representative) was examined as sole witness. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. Besides the documents detailed in preceedings paragraph, complainant also filed and relied upon the board resolution (Ex.CW1/1), certificate of incorporation (Ex.CW1/2), a certificate u/s.303(2), companies act (Ex.CW1/3), a receipt signed by the accused (Ex.CW1/4), promissory note (Ex.CW1/5), Property documents {Ex.CW1/6(colly.)} & Acknowledgment letter (Ex.CW1/7).
3. The complainant's witness was cross examined at length by ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. Complainant's evidence was followed by the statement of accused U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused. During the statement, accused admitted of having availed loan from the complainant in 2009. However, he CC No.949/14; MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Page 3 of 6 4 stated that loan was availed against a vehicle and not property. Regarding the impugned cheque, he deposed that same was issued as blank signed for security alongwith 24 other cheques in 2009. Accused further stated that he has already repaid 23 installments out of 24 installments. He denied the alleged settlement vide letter Ex.CW1/7 for the sum of Rs.70,000/. However, receipt of legal demand notice was admitted by him.
5. During the defence evidence, accused examined himself as DW1 u/s.315 CrPC. During the statement, he repeated the entire story narrated by him during his statement u/s.313 CrPC, as detailed in the preceeding paragraph. He also filed the documents Ex.DW1/A (Colly.) and Ex.DW1/B (Colly.).
6. I have perused the record and heard the arguments from the ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties. Now, I proceed with the judgment.
CC No.949/14; MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Page 4 of 6 5
7. The defence pleaded by the accused is that he had already repaid 23 installments and the impugned cheque was security cheque issued by him alongwith 24 other cheques issued in 2009.
8. It would be relevant to mention here that the entire case of the complainant has been admitted by the accused via documents Ex.CW1/4, Ex.CW1/5 & Ex.CW1/7. The accused had explained at the time of framing of notice that documents Ex.CW1/4 & Ex.CW1/5 were got signed blank by him. Whereas the document Ex.CW1/7 is apparently not disputed because neither the signatures upon it are denied nor any suggestion in this regard was put by the defence during the cross examination of complainant witness. Further, nothing has been produced by the defence to show that the accused had made the payment of 23 installments.
9. Via documents mentioned above (Exs.CW1/4, 5 & 7), accused has admitted his liability and also the issuance of the impugned cheque in discharge of the same. A bald statement at the time of CC No.949/14; MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Page 5 of 6 6 framing of notice u/s.251 CrPC that the documents were signed blank by the accused is not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of these documents. Dishonour of impugned cheque is proved by the return memo Ex.CW1/9. The service of legal demand notice is also admitted by the accused during his statement u/s.313 CrPC.
10. Without going into further discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that accused had issued the impugned cheque in discharge of his liability and he has admitted the same in writing. Accused failed to establish any defence in his favour. He stands convicted for the offence u/s.138 N.I. Act. (Announced in the open court on 24.02.2014) This Judgment contains 6 pages.
and each paper is signed by me.
(BABRU BHAN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS /NEW DELHI CC No.949/14; MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Page 6 of 6