Delhi District Court
Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd vs . Npp Energy Ltd & Ors on 16 August, 2022
Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors IN THE COURT OF AJAY NARWALMETROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- 01, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI. Starlit E-Recylers Pvt. Ltd. A-1/20, LGF, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi-110029. ............. Complainant Versus 1. NPP Energy Limited 1961/3, Arya Samaj Road, Near HDFC Bank, Narela, Delhi 2. Ved Prakash Sharma Director NPP Energy Limited G-1/105, 1st floor, Southend Apartment. Charmwood village, Faridabad, Haryana. 3. Babita Sharma Director, NPP Energy Limited G-1/105, 1st floor, Southend Apartment. Charmwood village, Faridabad, Haryana. 4. Kalpana Adhikhari Director NPP Energy Limited C-85/F-4, Shalimar Garden-II, Sahibabad, UP. ............ Accused C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 1/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors Offence complained of : U/s 138 NI Act Plea of the Accused : Accused pleaded not guilty Date of filing : 30.04.2012 Date of institution of the Case : 02.05.2012 Date of decision : 16.08.2022 Final Order : Accused No. 1 & 2 (Convicted) Accused no. 3 (Acquitted) & Accused No. 4 (dropped) JUDGMENT:
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the accused persons under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Brief reasons for the decision of the case:
Version of the complainant:
1. Complainant company deals in the business of manufacturing alloys of lead such as Selenium, Calcium and tin-based alloys such as Grey Oxide and Red Oxide. As per complainant company, accused persons entered into a commercial transaction with the complainant company, whereby accused persons had placed orders for supply of lead sub-Oxide Grey and lead Alloy at the agreed rate, price whereof included required taxes for supply of aforesaid goods, which was to be paid by the accused persons to the complainant company. Complainant company supplied the accused persons the aforesaid goods and total sum of Rs. 13,49,219.48/- was due to be paid by the accused C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 2/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors persons to the complainant company for the aforesaid supply of goods. Accused company issued a cheque of Rs. 2,69,800/- drawn on PNB Bank, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh to the complainant company. The said cheque on presentation by complainant company got dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient". A legal demand notice dated 24.03.2012 was served on accused persons. No payment was made. Hence, complaint was filed by the complainant company in the present matter.
2. Summons were issued upon the accused persons vide order dated
02.06.2012 and the accused persons entered their appearance through counsel on 01.07.2013 and they were granted bail on the same day itself. Vide order dated 29.08.2013 proceedings were dropped against accused no. 4 on the statement of AR of the complainant.
3. In order to prove the case, the complainant had examined its AR i.e Shri. Yogesh Kumar Gupta as CW-1 by way of affidavit EX CW1/G & Ex. CW1/M and has relied upon the following documents:
1) Board Resolution dated 23/04/2012 Ex.-CW-1/A.
2) Original cheque in question Ex. CW-1/B.
3) Original cheque return memo dated 09.03.2012 Ex. CW-1/C.
4) Legal notice dated 24.03.2012 Ex. CW-1/D.
5) Postal receipts Ex. CW-1/E.
6) Complaint Ex. CW-1/F.
7) Ledger account Ex. CW-1/H (Colly.)
8) Bank Statement Ex. CW-1/I (Colly.).
9) Form-C Ex. CW-1/J (Colly.) 10) Audited Account Ex. CW-1/K (Colly.). 11) Certificate u/s. 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex. CW-1/L. Notice against the accused persons: C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 3/16
Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors
4. Separate notices were framed against the accused No. 1 NPP Energy Ltd through accused No. 2 Ved Prakash Sharma, and accused no. 3 Babita Sharma on 29.08.2013.
"I Sunil Beniwal, MM-3, (South), Saket Court, New Delhi, do hereby serve the present notice upon you accused No. 1 NPP Energy Ltd through accused No. 2 Ved Prakash Sharma s/o Sh. L.N. Sharma that you in discharge of liability to the complainant issued cheque No.841255 dated 31.01.2012 for sum of Rs. 2,69,800/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, in favour of the complainant which was returned unpaid due to the reason, "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 09.03.2012 and despite notice for demand dated 24.03.2012 served upon you, you failed to make the payment of the said cheque amount within stipulated time and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and within my cognizance. I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the above said notice."
"I Sunil Beniwal, MM-3, (South), Saket Court, New Delhi, do hereby serve the present notice upon you accused No. 2. Ved Prakash Sharma s/o Sh. L.N. Sharma that you in discharge of liability to the complainant issued cheque No.841255 dated 31.01.2012 for sum of Rs. 2,69,800/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, in favour of the complainant which was returned unpaid due to the reason, "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 09.03.2012 and despite notice for demand dated 24.03.2012 served upon you, you failed to make the payment of the said cheque amount within stipulated time and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and within my cognizance. I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the above said notice."C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 4/16
Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors "I Sunil Beniwal, MM-3, (South), Saket Court, New Delhi, do hereby serve the present notice upon you accused No. 3. Babita Sharma w/o Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma that you in discharge of liability to the complainant issued cheque No.841255 dated 31.01.2012 for sum of Rs. 2,69,800/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, in favour of the complainant which was returned unpaid due to the reason, "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 09.03.2012 and despite notice for demand dated 24.03.2012 served upon you, you failed to make the payment of the said cheque amount within stipulated time and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and within my cognizance. I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the above said notice."
Plea of defence of the accused persons:
5. The accused persons have taken the following plea in their defence:
"We are innocent and we are not guilty for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act because we have no liability as alleged by the complainant in this present complaint. No notice of demand was served to the company or any director.
The Law:
6. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is considered important to lay down the basic provisions of law with respect to section 138 of the Act which are as follows:
7. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes dishonour of cheques an offence. It provides that "where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 5/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors 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".
8. Careful reading of section 138 of the Act reflects that there are following key ingredients which need to exist for there to be an offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:-
(a) That the accused issued cheque in favor of the payee/complainant on an account maintained by him to discharge legal liability in whole or in part.
(b) That the cheque was presented within stipulated time by the complainant for encashment.
(c) That the cheque was dishonored on presentation because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
(d) That the demand for the payment of the said amount of money is made by giving a legal demand notice within 30 days from the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
(e) That the accused fails to make payment of the cheque amount to complainant within 15 days, after receiving of the legal demand notice.
9. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the accused i.e. an C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 6/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Thus, normally the initial burden to prove is on the complainant/ prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Also, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. However, in offences under section 138 of the Act, there is a reverse onus clause contained in sections 118 and 139 of the Act. Before adverting into the discussion with regard to the defence taken by the accused ,it is important to reproduce Sec.118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sec.139 of the N.I. Act here.
10. Section 118(a) of the Act provides that until the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that "that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
11. Further, Section 139 of the Act lays down that "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."
12. Thus, section 139 of the Act puts the burden on the accused to prove his defence. However, the accused has to prove his defence on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Once the presumption is displaced, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
13. In the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that " Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 7/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own".
Findings:
14. Since, section 139 of the Act shifts the burden to prove on the accused to prove his defence, his defence will be considered, discussed and decided one by one :
DEFENCE (A): THERE IS NO LEGAL ENFORCEABLE DEBT AS THE COMPLAINANT HAS FAILED TO SUPPLY ANY GOODS.
15. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that complainant has failed to establish the existence of legally recoverable debt as there is no proof of supply of goods. It is further contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that cheque in question were not issued for discharge of any legal liabilities/debt as the complainant has failed to prove the supply of goods to the accused person, hence, there was no liability for any payment and C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 8/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors no presumption can be raised in favour the complainant. On the other hand. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that relevant documents i.e. CW1/H (colly) i.e. Ledger account, CW1/K Audited accounts of the complainant company, Ex. CW1/I i.e Bank statement of the Complainant proves the business relationship between the complainant and the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant further argued that various bills annexed with Ex. CW1/H were accepted by the employees of Accused no.1 and it proves that goods have been supplied.
16. It is pertinent to mention that all the accused persons have admitted in their statement under 313 of CrPC that there were business transactions between complainant and the accused no. 1 Company. Further, during the cross examination not even a single question has been put the AR of the complainant to prove the fact that there were no business transactions between the complainant and the accused persons. Further, Bank statement of the Complainant i.e Ex. CW1/I proves the business relationship between the complainant and the accused persons. In view of the same, it is clear that accused persons have admitted that there was business relationship between the accused persons and the complainant. It is settled principle of law and as well of evidence that purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to accord an opportunity to the accused to explain his version of the story and same may be used by the courts to complete the chain of circumstances.
17. Moreover, on 16.08.2019, the AR of the complainant filed the additional affidavit and relied upon various exhibited documents. These documents contain various invoices/bills issued by the complainant in favour of accused no. 1 for the year 2010-2011/2012. Perusal of the cross examination of the AR of the complainant demonstrate that Ld. Counsel for the accused persons gave a suggestion to the effect that the ledger account, deliver challans, invoices C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 9/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors and GR are forged. However, it is pertinent to mention that mere denial is not a proof and the accused persons are required to bring cogent evidence on record to prove fact that the aforesaid documents are forged. Moreover, no defence is laid by the accused persons to prove that aforesaid bills/invoices were fake or forged. In view of the above, it is clear that goods were supplied by the complainant to the accused persons and legal enforceable debt was in existence and cheque in question was given in lieu of aforesaid legal enforceable debt.
DEFENCE (B): CHEQUE IN QUESTION IS MERELY A BLANK SIGNED BILL OF EXCHANGE IN TERMS OF SECTION 5 OF THE NI ACT
18. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued during the final arguments that the cheque in question was indeed a blank signed bill of exchange which was subsequently manipulated in the form of cheque, wherein no particular have been filled by the accused and it is contended that in the cheque in question become void as per the provisions of section 87 of the NI Act. Even the accused persons in their statement of defence under 313 of CrPC have stated that cheque in question was given post-dated cheque and same was misused by the complainant.
19. It is pertinent to note that it is immaterial as to who had filled the particulars in the cheque if the signatures on the cheque in question has been signed duly by the drawer. A reliance be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar 2019 (4) SCC 197, wherein it has been held that, a material reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remain liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.
C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 10/16Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors It further laid down that it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer.
In the instant case, the accused person no. 2 has admitted in reply to the notice under 251 CrPC that he issued the cheque to the complainant and cheque in questions is bears his signature. Thus, it becomes irrelevant as to who has filled the particulars in the cheque in question, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (supra). Thus, the defence of the accused that a blank signed cheque was handed over to the complainant is irrelevant.
DEFENCE (C):THE ACCUSED PERSONS DID NOT RECEIVE THE LEGAL NOTICE.
20. It is the case of the accused persons that they did not receive the legal notice. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the complainant has not examined any witness from the concerned postal department to prove the fact the said notice was delivered to the accused persons. Per-contra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that legal notice was duly served on the accused persons that's why they have enter their appearance.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another" (2007) 6 SCC 555 has held that :-
"Any drawer who claim that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint within the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 11/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors 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 the G. C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation."
22. In the present case, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on Ex. CW1/D, which shows that the legal demand notice was sent to the accused persons. The accused persons have not brought on record any evidence to show that the address mentioned in the legal demand notice is not the correct address. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court, the presumption is raised in favour of the complainant and the onus of proof is lie on the accused persons and the accused persons have falied to rebutt the said onus. In view of the aforesaid, the accused persons at this stage cannot take a plea that they have not received the legal notice. Hence the service of legal notice stands proved.
DEFENCE (D): EX. CW1/H i.e. LEDGER STATEMENT IS MERELY AN EXTRACT AND NOT A BOOK OF ACCOUNTS
23. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons during the final arguments that to attract the provision of Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant must show the existence of a legal recoverable debt/liability and the cheque must be issued in order to discharge that debt/liability. Here, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the complainant will get the benefit of Section 139 NI Act only when he/she proves the existence of a legal recoverable debt. It is also argued by the counsel that in the present case, the complainant has relied upon a mere extract and an unsigned document i.e., Ex- CW-1/H which is in its present form is not per se admissible as it is not a book of accounts kept regularly in course of business in terms of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 12/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors Act, 1872(hereinafter, 'IEA' for brevity). It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Chandel vs. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 132 OF 2020) it was categorically held that production of books of account may be relevant in civil cases but not in criminal cases under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act because of presumption raised under section 139 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that EX-CW1/H is a ledger account maintained by the complainant and it shows an outstanding debt against the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have not laid any evidence to prove the fact that the ledger accounts are forged. Thus, w.r.t the extent of entries made in EX- CW1/H, same can be relied upon. Now, the sole contention is that the same could not be treated as a book of accounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment D. K. Chandel vs. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr (supra) has held that production books of accounts in cases filed under section 138 of the NI Act is not relevant because of presumption raised under section 139 of the NI Act. The presumption under section 139 NI Act will be raised as soon as execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted to accused to prove otherwise. Here in the case in hand, accused no. 2 has already admitted that the cheque in question was signed by him and handed over to the complainant, resultantly, his liability up to amount mentioned in the cheques in question be presumed, until proven otherwise. Further, the accused person have failed to rebut the non-existence of liability by leading any defence. Thus, this defence raised by the accused persons is liable to be rejected.
DEFENCE (E): ACCUSED NO. 3 IS NOT LIABLE TO BE
PROSECUTED
C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 13/16
Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors
24. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that accused no. 3 Babita Sharma has neither signed the cheque in question nor has any concern in the day-to-day affairs of the accused no. 1 Company and not liable to be prosecuted under section 138 of NI Act. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that accused no. 3 was involved in the business transactions of the complainant company and form C i.e. Ex. CW 1/J is being issued by the accused no. 1 through accused no. 3 under the Central Sales Tax Act.
25. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has not filed Form 32 in the present matter. Further, in the cross examination, CW-1 has stated that "it is correct that we have not filed any record showing the involvement of accused Babita Sharma in the day to day affairs of the accused no. 1 and the alleged transaction in question". When specific question was put to the AR of the complainant with respect to the documentary proof regarding the involvement of accused No. 03 in day to day affairs of the company and the AR of the complainant have admitted that no documents are filed with respect to the invovlement of accused No. 03 then the onus of proof shift upon the complainant to prove the said fact. It is pertinent to mention that no evidence has been laid by the complainant which could prove the involvement of accused No. 03 in day to day affair of the company. Further, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relies upon Ex. CW1/J which is being issued by the accused no. 1 through accused no. 3 under the Central Sales Tax Act is of no help as form 32 has not been produced/filed by the complainant. Form C issued by the accused no. 1 through accused no. 3 under the Central Sales Tax Act does not fasten the vicarious liablity of accused no. 03 in absence of form 32. In view of the above, the liability cannot be fasten upon accused no. 3 merely on the basis of form C i.e. Ex. CW 1/J which doesn't prove that accused no. 3 was involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company.
C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 14/16Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors
26. A three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr (AIR 2005 SC 351) has categorically held that when an accused is admittedly a Signatory Director, the accused per-se would be held liable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Nothing more is required to be alleged or proved to implicate such person. In the present case, accused no. 2 has admitted his signature on the cheque in question as such he is liable.
27. Cumulative effect of aforesaid discussion that accused person no. 1 & 2 have failed to rebut the presumption that cheques in question were issued in discharge of a legal debt/liability towards the complainant. Thus, it can be said that the cheque in question as issued by the accused person no. 1 & 2 were in discharge of legal debt or liability. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in establishing his case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person 1 & 2 had issued the cheque in question in discharge of its legally enforceable liability. The presumptions under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act were drawn against the accused person no 1 & 2. The accused person no. 1 & 2 have miserably failed to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence. Moreover, the judgements relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons are of no help as the facts and circumstances mentioned in those judgements are different from the facts and circumstances of the present matter.
28. The defence of the accused person no. 1 & 2 that there was no legal liability is not proved, even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375, has held as under, "Therefore, if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 15/16 Starlit E- Recylers Pvt. Ltd Vs. NPP Energy Ltd & Ors fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is inconceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce the evidence of his/her own. If, however, the accused/drawer of a cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, obviously statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act regarding commission of the offence comes into play if the same is not rebutted with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant....".
29. In light of the aforementioned discussion, the complainant has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of section 138 of the NI act. Accordingly, the Accused no. 1 NPP Energy Limited and its Director, Accused no. 2 Ved Prakash Sharma are held liable for committing the offence under section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 and hereby convicted. However, accused no. 3 Babita Sharma stands acquitted.
30. Let the convicts be separately heard for the quantum of sentence.
31. Let a copy of this judgment be given to all the convicts free of cost.
Digitally
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN AJAY
signed by
AJAY NARWAL
Date:
COURT ON 16.08.2022 NARWAL 2022.08.16
17:07:01
+0530
AJAY NARWAL
MM-01, PHC, NDD
16.08.2022.
It is certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NARWAL
NARWAL Date: 2022.08.16
17:07:07 +0530
AJAY NARWAL
MM-01, PHC, NDD
16.08.2022.
C.C. No. 54466/2016 Page 16/16