Delhi District Court
Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd vs Dilip Kumar on 7 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI ACT)-05, RACC
AT New Delhi,NEW DELHI
(Presided Over by Ms. Nishi Jindal)
C.C. No. 4802/2020
PS : Connaught Place
CNR No. DLND020062112020
Oravel Stays Private Limited
Having its registered office at:
Ground Floor 001, MauryanshElanza, Shyamal
Cross Road, Near Parekh Hospital, Satellite
Ahmedabad 380015, Gujarat
Also at:
241, West End Marg,
Near Saket Metro Station,
MB Road, Mittal Garden,
Sainik Farm, New Delhi
..........Complainant
Versus
Dilip Kumar
Proprietor
Hotel Akash Continental,
CE-1, CE-1, Shaheed Mangal Pandey Marg,
Nanak Pura, Hari Nagar, Delhi, India, 110064
.......... Accused
Date of Institution 17.03.2020
Offence complained of 138 NI Act
C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 1/16
Digitally
signed by
NISHI
NISHI JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.08.07
15:14:31
+0530
Date of decision 07.08.2024
Plea of guilt Not guilty
Decision Conviction
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present complaint case instituted by the Complainant invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(as in after referred to as NI Act).
2. The accused hereinabove mentioned has been summoned to face trial under Section 138 NI Act on the complaint filed by Oravel Stays Private Limited (hereinafter referred as 'complainant'). It is alleged in the complaint that Dilip Kumar (hereinafter referred as 'accused') approached the complainant to work with the complainant with the representation that the accused was in possession of premises being run under the name and style of Hotel Akash Continental which could be used for commercial purpose of boarding and lodging under the platform and brand name of OYO and/or OYO Rooms. Further, the accused entered into a Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement. In furtherance of the same, the complainant extended a business advance amounting to Rs. 1090000/- through its associate concern which was to be returned by the accused in monthly instalments. Thereafter, the accused issued the cheque in question nearing no 000016 dated 05.10.2019 drawn on IDFC bank amounting to Rs. 1,21,110/-. Complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for collection, to its banker HDFC bank limited, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi but the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused with the remarks "Payment stopped by Drawer" vide memo dated 20.11.2019. Thereafter, complainant got C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 2/16 NISHI Digitally signed by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 15:14:48 +0530 Date: 2024.08.07 issued a legal notice dated 08.12.2019 sent through Registered Post on 19.12.2019. Accused has neither given any response to said notice nor has made any payment of the amount within stipulated period. Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed.
Pre Trial Procedure:-
3. The complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.
CW-1/A and relied upon following evidences: -
a) Letter of Authority dated 06.11.2020 is Ex. CW1/1
b) Agreement dated 23.05.2019 is Ex. CW1/2 (Colly) c) Cheque is Ex. CW1/3
d) Return memo dated 20.11.2019 Ex. CW1/4
e) Legal demand notice dated 08.12.2019 is Ex.CW1/5(Colly).
f) Postal receipt dated 19.12.2019 is Ex. CW1/6.
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and notice under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') was served upon him on 08.04.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The accused took the defence that he earlier ran a hotel by the name of Akash Continental and had entered into business relations with OYO for a period of 6 months. Thereafter, the business ran into rough weather due to COVID lockdown. However, the complainant did not provide any payment to him for renovation work. That there are unsettled accounts between the C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 3/16 NISHI Digitally signed by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 15:14:53 +0530 Date: 2024.08.07 complainant and him. Further, he denied any liability towards the complainant for the amount mentioned in the cheque in question.
5. Thereafter, an oral application of the accused under Section 145 (2) of NI Act was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2022 and the accused was granted the opportunity to cross examine the complainant as well as his witnesses, if any.
6. The AR of the complainant was examined as CW1. In the post- summoning evidence, the complainant (CW1) has adopted his pre-summoning evidence. The complainant was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for accused. Thereafter, evidence was closed by the complainant on 15.04.2023.
Statement of accused :-
7. Accused was, thereafter, examined U/s 281 r/w Sec 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.05.2023, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to him.
The accused took the defence that he started the business with the complainant in 2017 and it was agreed that the complainant will refer clients to him on commission basis. However, after 2 months, he was informed that his services were not satisfactory and an amount of Rs. 10,90,000/- was given by the complainant for renovation of his hotel. Thereafter, the complainant started deducting excess payments and soon stopped paying him, altogether. Due to this, owner of the hotel asked me to vacate and I did the same. Thereupon, the complainant encashed the security cheque issued to him at the time of agreement.
C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 4/16 Digitally signed by NISHINISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.08.07 15:14:58 +0530 Defence Evidence:-
8. The accused chose not to lead Defence Evidence and accordingly, the same was closed vide order dated 23.09.2023. The matter was, thereafter, fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have ruminated over the case file thoroughly.
10. The following points required determination in the present case.
(i) Whether the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is made out against the accused.
(ii) Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant is duty bound to prove the following ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Aparna A. Shah v M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd &Anr. (2013)8 SCC 7.
"9. It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
a) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
b) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
c) that 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;
d) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 5/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.08.07 15:15:04 +0530 honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
e) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
f) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice"
12. The Act also raises two presumptions i.e. one contained in Section 118 (a) of the Act and other in Section 139 thereof. Section 118 (a) raises presumption as to Negotiable Instrument, until the contrary is proved the following presumption shall be made: -
Section 118 of the N.I Act provides:
"Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
of consideration - 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;"
Section 139 of the N.I Act further provides as follows:
"Presumption in favour of holder - 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".
Section 146 of NI Act "Bank's slip prima facie evidence of certain facts. -- The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 6/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2024.08.07 Date:
15:15:08 +0530 denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved."
13. However, in N.S. Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala 2006 (6) SCC 39, while dealing with the aspect of presumption in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumption under Section 118 (a) and 139 of the Act are rebuttable and the standard of proof required for such rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was further observed that in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act that, whenever it is provided by the Act that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard the said fact as proved unless and until it is disproved.
Applying the said definition of proved and disproved to the principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers non- existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstance of the particular case, to act upon supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption what is needed is to raise a probable defence.
The standard of proof evidently is preponderance of probability. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material on record but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
Therefore, rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before Court in support of defence, the court must C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 7/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2024.08.07 Date:
15:15:13 +0530 either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable. The standard of reasonableness being that of the "Prudent Man".
14. In this way from the combined reading of both these sections, two kinds of presumptions are raised i.e. one regarding the fact that the cheque was drawn for some consideration and that the same was held by the holder in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability. It is a mandatory presumption, though the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.
15. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that there exists a legally enforceable liability on behalf of the accused person towards the complainant. He further argued that the cheque in question Ex. CW1/3 was issued to the complainant in discharge of the liability and the signature on the cheque has already been admitted by the accused. He further argued that upon presentation the cheque was dishonoured and the same has been proved by the cheque return memos Ex. CW1/4. Further, counsel for complainant argued that legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 (Colly) was sent to the accused person and the same was duly served upon the accused person. Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that all the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are fulfilled and accordingly, the accused should be convicted.
16. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that there are unsettled accounts between the accused and the complainant. Furthermore, there is no legal liability of the accused towards the complainant and the cheque in question was a security cheque. He further argued that the essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act have not been satisfied in the present complaint in order C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 8/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2024.08.07 Date:
15:15:18 +0530 to constitute a valid complaint. He prayed that the accused person be acquitted of the offence.
FINDINGS-
17. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the cheque in question bears the signatures of the accused and the same has been drawn on an account maintained by him. Hence, a mandatory presumption is raised against the accused in this case that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt and drawn for good consideration by virtue of Section 118(a) r/w Section 139 of NI Act. The onus to rebut this presumption lies upon the accused. The same has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513 that: -
"The accused under Section 138 NI Act has two options. He can either show that the consideration and debt did not exit or that under the particular circumstances of the case, the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumption, an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as it is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which his 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 consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or there non-existence was so probably that a prudent man under C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 9/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2024.08.07 Date:
15:15:22 +0530 the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question, was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon the circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are so compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arises under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act".
18. In the present case, the accused has claimed that no legally recoverable liability existed between the parties as the accused had already settled the accounts pending between them. To substantiate the same, he has placed on record Addendum to the Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement marked as Mark A, Cash in Bank Addendum as Mark B and Summary of Monthly performance of July, 2019, October, 2019 till March, 2020 alongwith his statement of account from the period of 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. However, it is significant to note that that the accused has placed on record the print outs of the above documents without furnishing any certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'IEA'). The law on the above has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908 has held that-
"The requirement of the certificate, under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), is mandatory for admissibility of electronic record in evidence."
19. Hence, it is crystal clear from the above law point that any electronic record furnished without the certificate as required under section 65B IEA is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the same, Mark A, Mark B and Summary of Monthly performance of July, 2019, October, 2019 till March, C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 10/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2024.08.07 Date:
15:15:27 +0530 2020 along with his statement of account from the period of 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 cannot be taken into consideration by this court. This is moreso as the accused has neither examined himself nor the author of the above said documents to prove them. Mere the fact that the AR of the complainant has admitted to the same will not absolve the accused to discharge his onus to prove them along with the legal requirements under section 65B of IEA. Therefore, the defense of the accused that there are unsettled accounts remains unproved due to non-production of certificate under section 65B of IEA.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that the cheque in question was a security cheque. The AR of the complainant has stated in his cross examination when asked about the nature of the impugned cheque that-
"Those cheques were refundable cheques."
It is trite position of law as laid down by the Sripati Singh (since deceased) Through His Son Gaurav Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1269- 1270 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 252-253 of 2020) that -
"16. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. "Security" in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 11/16 NISHI Digitally signed by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 15:15:32 +0530 Date: 2024.08.07 dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow."
21. Further, in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2022, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.10.2022, it was held that-
" ......Based on the above analysis of precedent, the following principles emerge:
(i) Where the borrower agrees to repay the loan within a specified timeline and issues a cheque for security but defaults in repaying the loan within the timeline, the cheque matures for presentation. When the cheque is sought to be encashed by the debtor and is dishonoured, Section 138 of the Act will be attracted;
(ii) However, the cardinal rule when a cheque is issued for security is that between the date on which the cheque is drawn to the date on which the cheque matures, the loan could be repaid through any other mode. It is only where the loan is not repaid through any other mode within the due date that the cheque would mature for presentation; and
(iii) If the loan has been discharged before the due date or if there is an altered situation, then the cheque shall not be presented for encashment."
Thus, it is clear from the above proposition that even if the accused had issued a security cheque in favour of the complainant, then he still will be liable under section 138 of NI Act.
22. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the business amount of Rs. 10,90,000/- was advanced by the sister concern of the complainant i.e. Mypreferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt Ltd to the accused. However, the accused has argued that no document supporting the same has been placed on record by the complainant and hence, there exists no legal liability of the accused towards the complainant.
C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 12/16NISHI Digitally signed by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 15:15:38 +0530 Date: 2024.08.07
23. Be that as it may, perusal of the record would reveal that the cheque in question Ex CW1/3 has been issued in favour of the complainant only and not towards the sister concern of the complainant namely Mypreferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt Ltd. If the legal liability existed towards the sister concern of the complainant and not towards the complainant then the cheque in question should not have been issued in favour of the complainant. However, this is not the case in the present matter. It is also more noteworthy to see that the accused has not denied his signatures on the same. Thus, the presumptions as laid down under the NI Act have remain unrebutted and uncontroverted in the present matter.
24. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused as stated in his notice of accusation. It is also not in dispute that the cheque in question was drawn on an account maintained by the accused. Reference can be made to Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898, wherein it was held:
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant."
25. Moreover, mere denial or by creation of doubt, the accused cannot be said to have rebutted the presumption as envisaged under Section 139A NI Act. The reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India "P. Rasiya Vs Abdul Nazer and Anr. CrA no.1233-1235 of 2022" which held that-
C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 13/16NISHI Digitally signed by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 15:15:43 +0530 Date: 2024.08.07 "7...As per Section 139 of the N.I. 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 discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a statutory presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the Complainant/holder of the cheque, in that case, it is for the accused to prove the contrary".
It invariably means that as per the overall facts and circumstances in the present case that the accused has taken the alleged business amount from complainant which evidently proves his pre-existing liability. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, the accused has failed to rebut this presumption and this defence of accused is liable to be rejected.
26. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as V.S. Yadav v. Reena, 172 (2010) DLT 561 has held that-
"It must be borne in mind that the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful. In the present case, the accused in his statement stated that he had given cheques as security. If the accused wanted to prove this, he was supposed to appear in the witness box and testify and get himself subjected to cross examination. His explanation that he had the cheques as security for taking loan from the complainant but no loan was given should not have been considered by the Trial Court as his evidence and this was liable to be rejected since the accused did not C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 14/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.08.07 15:15:48 +0530 appear in the witness box to dispel the presumption that the cheques were issued as security. Mere suggestion to the witness that cheques were issued as security or mere explanation given in the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. P.C., that the cheques were issued as security, does not amount to proof."
It was further held in that case that-
"Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act. If mere statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. or under Section 281 Cr. P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/ prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued once."
Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, all the ingredients enumerated in Section 138 of NI Act stands fulfilled.
27. Thus, the present complaint has disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Moreover, the complainant has been successful in proving all the elements of Section 138 of NI Act. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of complainant either on the basis of the material available on record or by adducing any cogent or supporting evidence except bare assertions, which were not at all substantiated by any document on record.
28. Having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint and evidence on file, it is held that cheque Ex.CW/3 was issued by accused in favour of complainant for discharging his legally enforceable liability. Said cheque on presentation with bank was dishonoured, whereupon legal notice was issued to C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 15/16 Digitally signed by NISHI NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.08.07 15:15:53 +0530 accused by complainant calling upon accused to make payment, however, accused did not make payment of amount of cheque and thus committed offence under Section 138 of the act.
29. In the light of discussion above, accused namely Dilip Kumar is held guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted thereunder.
Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
Copy of this Judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost as per rules.
Digitally signedNISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2024.08.07 Date:
15:15:58 +0530 Pronounced in Open Court. (Nishi Jindal), Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dated: 07.08.2024 RACC, NDD C.C. No. 4802/2020 Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Page No. 16/16