Delhi District Court
Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal vs . M/S.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd. on 17 August, 2013
Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CA NO: 45/13
Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal
W/o Sh.Puneet Sabharwal
R/o H.No.236, Top Floor
Ambika Vihar
New Delhi-110 087. ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Moongipa Capital Finance Limited
Having its registered office at 18/14
W.E.A.Pusa Lane, Karol Bagh
New Delhi-110 005. ... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 20.04.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 31.07.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 17.08.2013
JUDGMENT
1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2013 (hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment) vide which appellant was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) and the sentence order dated 26.03.2013 (hereinafter referred to as impugned sentence order) vide which appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 60 days and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant within one CA NO: 45/13 1/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 month from the date of impugned sentence order and in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present appeal are that as per the allegations made in the complaint, appellant had stood guarantor for a borrower namely Sh.Aman Singh in a loan agreement under which Sh.Aman Singh had taken a loan from the complainant/respondent company. On failure of Sh.Aman Singh to clear off his outstanding liability to the complainant, appellant Talvinder Sabharwal had issued a cheque bearing no. 398949 dated 26.02.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,32,000/-from her account no. 32194 in favour of complainant to clear the liability of Sh.Aman Singh as she was guarantor for Sh.Aman Singh. However, on presentation of cheque, it was dishonoured vide returning memo dated 03.03.2010 with remarks "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, a legal notice of demand dated 17.03.2010 was sent to appellant. Despite notice, appellant had failed to pay any sum. Hence, a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was filed before the ld.trial court.
3. The appellant was summoned u/s 138 of the NI Act and at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., appellant admitted her signatures on the cheque in question. However, she submitted that the cheque was issued as a blank cheque for the purpose of guarantee only and she had not taken any loan from the respondent/complainant. Appellant further stated that she had not received the demand notice. However, she admitted that the address mentioned in the legal demand notice is her correct CA NO: 45/13 2/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 address.
4. The respondent/complainant examined CW1, AR of complainant Sh.Vimal Mehta, who reiterated the contents of the complaint on oath. In the cross examination by counsel for appellant, CW1 admitted that resolution does not specifically mentions that he has been authorized to file the complaint against appellant. CW1 deposed that he had been witness to the loan agreement Ex.CW1/5 of appellant dated 23.12.2008. CW1 deposed that on the loan agreement Ex.CW1/5, the particular regarding the interest on loan has been left blank. CW1 deposed that loan amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- was given to Sh.Aman Singh by way of cheque. CW1 admitted that said entry of Rs.1,32,000/- is not reflected in the statement of account Ex.CW1/6 filed by him. CW1 denied that the statement of account filed by him is not correct. However, CW1 admitted that statement of account does not show the date on which payment of Rs. 1,32,000/- was made and also does not show the particulars of the cheque through which the payment was made. CW1 admitted that complainant has not filed any documents to show that amount of Rs.1,32,000/- was disbursed to Sh.Aman Singh. CW1 deposed that Sh.Aman Singh was given loan of Rs.1,32,000/- and appellant had stood guarantor for him. CW1 deposed that at the time of execution of loan agreement, complainant had taken 12 installment cheques from Sh.Aman Singh. CW1 deposed that in February, 2010, Sh.Aman Singh had given cheque of Rs. 1,32,000/- and took back his balance cheques from the complainant. The said cheque of Rs. 1,32,000/- was got dishonoured. CW1 admitted that complainant had filed a criminal complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act against Sh.Aman Singh regarding CA NO: 45/13 3/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 that cheque. CW1 deposed that at the time when installment cheques were taken from the borrower Sh.Aman Singh, no cheques were taken from appellant. CW1 voluntarily deposed that appellant had handed over cheque in question to the complainant as a duly filled up cheque. CW1 denied that cheque in question was given by accused at the time of signing of loan agreement Ex.CW1/5. CW1 further denied that complainant took advance cheque from the guarantor also. CW1 proved the copy of courier receipt of legal demand notice served upon the appellant vide Ex.CW1/14. CW1 denied that appellant is not liable to pay cheque amount and that no consideration was passed regarding the cheque amount. CW1 deposed that Sh.Aman Singh had repaid the complainant around Rs. 11,835/-.
5. CW-2 Sh Majid Wani,Associate executive of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Branch Karol Bagh, Delhi has proved dishonourment of cheque and grant of loan vide Ex CW-1/A and Ex. CW-1/B respectively.
6. Statement of accused was also recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which she admitted her signatures on the cheque Ex.CW1/7 but further stated that rest of particulars regarding the name of payee, amount and date were not filled in by her or in her presence. She further stated that she does not have any knowledge regarding the dishonour of cheque and she had never received any legal demand notice regarding the same. Appellant admitted in her statement that she stood as a guarantor for Sh.Aman Singh who had taken loan from the respondent/complainant company. She stated that she had given the cheque in question to Sh.Aman Singh and not the complainant/respondent company.
CA NO: 45/13 4/17Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13
7. In defence evidence, appellant examined herself as DW-1 and has deposed that she did not know Aman Singh and she kept the cheques in the custody of her husband. DW-1 further deposed that she has not signed any loan agreement Ex CW-1/5 nor she knew the principal borrower Aman Singh. She further deposed that she has not issued the cheque Ex CW-1/7 to the respondent. In her cross-examination she admitted that cheque in question which was given to the respondent was not in the custody of her husband. She further denied that she has signed the loan agreement. However, she admitted that she had issued cheque in question for the purpose of guarantee. It was again reiterated that principal borrower Sh Aman Singh is neither known to her or to her husband.
8. The ld.trial court vide impugned judgment did not accept the defence of appellant that legal notice of demand was not served upon the appellant and the cheque in question was not issued by appellant in favour of respondent/complainant for legally enforceable liability. Accordingly, appellant was convicted vide impugned judgment and sentenced accordingly vide the impugned sentence order. Hence, the present appeal.
9. The grounds of challenge of the impugned judgment and impugned sentence order are as follows:-
a) That the impugned order of conviction and sentence are not only illegal, perverse but are also against the law and on facts on record.
b) That the respondent/complainant has failed to file any complaint in CA NO: 45/13 5/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 respect of loan agreement against Puneet Sabharwal whose signature are stated to be on said loan agreement and even against cheque which bears his signatures which clearly shows that no such agreement was signed by accused/ appellant and only blank cheque was given by husband of appellant bearing his signature to Sh.Aman Singh, who gave the cheque to the company as security against the loan taken by him and no consideration against the loan taken by Sh.Aman Singh was ever paid to appellant or her husband.
c) That the ld.trial court has failed to appreciate that respondent/complainant has failed to prove the date as to when the cheque bearing no. 398949 was issued or given to the respondent/complainant. The ld.trial court has wrongly held that cheque in question was given to respondent on 26.02.2010 and has also accepted the issuance of notice on the same fact that the cheque in question was given on 26.02.2010 which fact is totally false.
d) That the ld.trial court erred in holding that statement of account of respondent/complainant company was duly proved.
e) That the ld.trial court has erred in taking into consideration the complaint based on statement of account whereby the last entry is of 12.02.2010 showing debit balance of Rs.23,670/- and whereas the complaint has been filed on the basis of cheque amounting to Rs.1,32,000/-.
f) That the ld.trial court has materially erred to accept the resolution whereby AR Sh.Vimal was authorized to file the complaint against the appellant as said resolution no where state and authorize Sh.Vimal Mehtra as AR to file the complaint against appellant.
CA NO: 45/13 6/17Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13
g) That the ld.trial court has failed to take into consideration that accused was never given any notice of amount due against the borrower Mr.Aman Singh and the amount outstanding as on 26.02.2010 and there was no question of accused knowing the so amount payable and giving of cheque of 26.10.2010 in favour of respondent/complainant. The ld.trial court has not discussed this fact and suo moto held that accused was aware of pendency of this amount and issued the cheque, without any evidence on that account.
h) That the ld.trial court has materially erred taking into consideration the present complaint against the accused when a similar complaint of the same amount of Rs.1,32,000/- was filed by respondent/complainant against Mr.Aman Singh before filing the present complaint as there cannot be two complaints against same cause of action against two different persons.
i) That the ld.trial court failed to take into consideration the objections taken by appellant that no agreement of loan was signed by appellant and no evidence has been given to prove that the agreement was signed by appellant. The trial court has erred in comparing the signature and holding that it appears that signature on the loan agreement Ex.CW1/5 and cheque Ex.CW1/7 appears to be of same person and on presumption, held the appellant guilty u/s 138 of the NI Act.
j) That the ld.trial court has materially erred in taking into consideration that agreement bears the signature of Mr.Puneet Sabharwal and cheque Ex.CW1/7 also bears the signature of Puneet Sabharwal. The ld.trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of CW1 who failed to prove the signatures of Puneet CA NO: 45/13 7/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 Sabharwal.
k) That the ld.trial court erred in not considering the fact that the loan agreement being unstamped was in admissible in law.
l) That the ld.trial court has materially erred in relying upon the judgments which are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
m) That the ld.trial court has erred in believing whatever has been asserted by the respondent as a gospel truth and resulted in manifest injustice to the accused.
n) That the ld.trial court has completely failed to appreciate that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant was liable to be acquitted as the respondent had miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
o) That the ld.trial court has completely failed to appreciate that there is a clear contradiction in the evidence led by complainant's witnesses and held the appellant guilty. The findings and reasonings are absolutely perverse and are based on presumptions and assumptions as no such evidence has been led by prosecution in this regard and the same are liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.
p) That the ld.trial court has imposed fine of Rs.2,00,000/- which is in violation of mandate of Section 29(2) of Cr.P.C.
q) That the ld.trial court has materially erred in holding that accused has admitted dishonourment of cheque and the memo is signed by the manager of the bank which fact has not been proved in the statement of CW1 as CW1 only exhibited the documents without confirming the signature of the official of bank.
Accordingly, it is prayed that impugned judgment and CA NO: 45/13 8/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 impugned sentence order be set aside.
10.Notice of the appeal was issued to respondent. Respondent chose not to file any reply and submitted that he will argue the matter rightaway without filing any reply.
11.I have heard the counsel for appellant and counsel for respondent. I have also summoned the trial court record and have carefully perused the same.
12. The first ground on which impugned judgment has been assailed is that statement of account Ex CW-1/6, which has been relied upon by the ld. Trial court to show the existence of liability against the appellant has not been duly proved and even otherwise the statement of account Ex Pw-1/6 shows debit balance of Rs. 23,760/- as on 12.02.2010. Therefore the cheque dated 26.02.2010 of Rs.1,32,000/- Ex CW-1/7 was not issued in favour of any liability of Rs.1,32,000/-. The said plea of the appellant is not acceptable as although at the time of examination-in-chief, appellant had objected to the statement of account Ex CW-1/6 with regard to the mode of proof but lateron AR of respondent had produced on record certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support of Ex CW-1/6, copy of which was duly supplied to the appellant's counsel. Since Ex CW-1/6 is computer generated copy and falls within the definition of Electronic evidence, therefore same stands proved in the light of certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 dated 10.12.2011. Since the document Ex CW-1/6 has been duly proved, therefore the statement of account can not be looked into for the purpose of finding out as to whether CA NO: 45/13 9/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 on the date of issuance of cheque, was there any liability of Rs. 1,32,000/- or not? As per statement of account Ex CW-1/6, it shows outstanding liability of Rs. 1,47,013.85, therefore and the plea of the appellant that liability mentioned in the cheque of Rs. 1,32,000/- was not in existence is not acceptable.
13.During the course of arguments, counsel for appellant had submitted that the entries which shows total outstanding of Rs. 1,47,013.85 do not form part of the statement of account Ex CW-1/6 as no date has been mentioned against the same and the said entry had been manipulated. The said contention of the counsel for appellant is not acceptable as once the document Ex CW-1/6 stands proved on record then it entire contents can be looked into by the court for coming to the conclusion as to whether cheque was issued in discharge of liability of Rs.1,32,000/- or not. If the document Ex CW-1/6 is looked into then it reflects total outstanding of Rs.1,47,013.85, which is more than a cheque amount as mentioned in the prayer. The contention of the counsel for appellant that entires in Ex CW-1/6 are forged and fabricated is not acceptable as this plea is taken up for the first time in the appeal and no defence was raised in the cross-examination of CW-1 i.e. AR of respondent that he had filed a forged statement of account and certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act dated 10.12.2011. Therefore the necessary inference which can be drawn is that appellant had accepted entires reflected in statement Ex Cw-1/6 and that is why entries made in document Ex CW-1/6 were not questioned. Hence on this ground impugned judgment can not be set aside.
14.The second ground raised in the appeal was that AR Sh Vimal CA NO: 45/13 10/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 Mehta was not duly authorized to file the present complaint against appellant is also not acceptable as trial court record reflects that AR Sh. Vimal Mehta had filed on record the board resolution dated 30.01.2010 Ex CW-1/3, whereby he was authorised to file criminal complaint on behalf of respondent's company. The resolution dated 30.01.2010 Ex CW-1/3 was duly proved by producing the original minutes book before the court. Therefore AR Sh Vimal Mehta was duly authorized by the Board of Resolution to file the criminal complaint on behalf of respondent's company and this plea is not acceptable.
15. Even otherwise Special Power of Attorney Ex CW-1/4 has been filed on record by the respondent's company whereby Sh Vimal Mehta has been authorised specifically to file and pursue the criminal complaint against the appellant. Therefore Board resolution Ex CW-1/3 and Special power of Attorney Ex CW-1/4 duly proves that AR, Sh Vimal Mehta was duly authorized to file criminal complaint and to depose in the present case against the appellant. Accordingly this contention of the appellant is rejected.
16.The third ground on which impugned judgment has been assailed is that no notice of demand was raised by the respondent against the appellant. Therefore the question of appellant issuing cheuqe Ex CW-1/7 in favour of respondent/complainant does not arise. To further buttress his contention the counsel for appellant has drawn attention of this court towards clause 15 of the agreement Ex CW-1/5. I have carefully perused clause 15 of agreement Ex CW-1/5 and as per the same the guarantor was obliged to pay on demand any money due or which become payable under agreement and not paid by borrower. The clause-15 of the CA NO: 45/13 11/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 agreement Ex CW-1/5 do not specifically mentions that the demand which was to be raised upon the guarantor had to be raised in writing. In the opinion of this court clause-15 of the agreement Ex CW-1/5 stands satisfied in the present case as in para-6 in the examination-in-chief by the affidavit of AR of respondent, he has specifically deposed that respondent had approached the appellant and had persistently demanded the payment outstanding as on 12.02.2010 vide Ex CW-1/6. The said deposition of the AR of respondent demanding outstanding payment from the appellant/guarantor complied with clause-15 of the agreement Ex CW-1/5 and therefore on this ground also no interference is called in impugned judgment.
17.The next contention of the appellant was that ld. Trial court did not take into account the fact that respondent was already pursuing the criminal complaint against the principal borrower i.e. Aman Singh and they could not have filed two different complaints against two different persons on the same cause of action. This plea of the appellant is outrightly rejected in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as ICDS Ltd. Vs. Beena Shabeer & Anr. (2002) 6 SCC 426. In the said matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not go into the provisions of Section 126 and Section 128 of the Contract Act dealing with the liability of principal borrower and guarantor as the same was out of purview of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and held in para-10 as here under:"The language, however, has been rather specific as regards the intent of the legislature. The commencement of the section stands with the words "where any cheque". The above noted three words are of extreme significance, in particular, by CA NO: 45/13 12/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 reason of the use of the word "any" -the first three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the highlighted words if read with the first three words or the commencement of Section 138, leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reason it may be, the liability under the provision cannot be avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the High Court, neither been dealt with or even referred to in the impugned judgment."
18. Therefore in the light of above mentioned judgment, ld. Trial court was only concerned with the cheque issued by the appellant in the liability and the pendency of the criminal complaint against the borrower was not required to be considered. Therefore on this plea also impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this court.
19.The next contention of the counsel for appellant was that cheque in question was not issued in discharge of liability by the appellant as it has come in the evidence of AR of respondent that no loan was granted to the appellant.
20. It was further submitted that since no consideration has been passed in favour of the appellant, therefore Ex CW-1/7 was not issued in discharge of any liability. This plea of the appellant is also not acceptable as Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, nowhere provides that cheque should have been issued in CA NO: 45/13 13/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 discharge of personal liability. The word "used" in 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is "other liability". The word "other liability"
connotes that liability need not be personal one and cheque can be issued in discharge of liability of third person. Although it is true that in the present case loan was not granted to the appellant and the same was taken by Sh Aman Singh but since the cheque in question was issued by the appellant to discharge the "other liability" that is the liability of the borrower, therefore the case of the appellant is squarely covered U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. I am fortified in my reasoning by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as M/s.The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Vs. Abhishek Mittal, 2012(1) DCR 189, wherein para-10, it was held that "Section 138 of the Act is not confined to the cases where cheque has been issued in discharge of own personal debt and liability but is also applicable in relation to cheque issued by a person in discharge of debt or liability of another person".
Therefore this plea of the appellant is also not acceptable and is accordingly rejected.
21.The next contention of the counsel for appellant was that return memo regarding dis-honourment of cheque CW-1/8A was not duly proved as the concerned official of the bank, who had issued the same was not examined in this case. The said contention of the appellant counsel is also not acceptable in the light of Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
22.Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides that the court shall presume on production of bank slip or memo having an official mark, the fact of dis-honourment of cheque until and unless such fact is disapproved. Therefore production of original return CA NO: 45/13 14/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 memo Ex CW-1/8A is eligible for raising the presumption in terms of Section 146 Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonourment of cheque, which is further corroborated by the testimony of CW-2 Majid Wani, official from banker of appellant i.e. Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi. CW-2 on behalf of respondent by producing statement of account Ex CW-2/C has proved dishnourment of cheque in question on 03.03.2010. Therefore dishonourment of cheque Ex CW-1/C was duly proved not only by return memo Ex CW-1/8A but also by the testimony of CW-2 Majid Wani, who was official of the bank of the appellant. Therefore this plea is accordingly rejected.
23.Lastly it was contended by counsel for appellant that Ex CW-1/7 was given duly signed in blank condition at the time of grant of loan to the respondent and the same has been lateron misused by the respondent's company. The said plea of the appellant is also not acceptable as it has come in the evidence of CW-1 on behalf of respondent that cheque Ex CW-1/7 was given by the appellant in February 2010 and the same was duly filled up. No evidence has been led on record by the appellant to show that cheque Ex CW-1/7 had not been duly filled up in her own handwriting. Even otherwise as per judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi reported as Jammu and Kashmir's case(Supra), a person issuing a blank signed cheque gives implied authority to the drawee of the cheque to fill up the cheque in terms of his liability. Secondly, plea of the appellant is also not acceptable as she has taken contradictory defence before the ld. Trial court. At the stage of framing of Notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C appellant has admitted that she had issued the cheque for the purpose of guarantee. Thereafter in the entire CA NO: 45/13 15/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 cross-examination of CW-1, no suggestion was given that the cheque Ex CW-1/7 was never issued in favour of the complainant/respondent. However, at the stage of statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, appellant had taken the defence that her blank signed cheques including the cheque in question Ex CW-1/7 used to remain in the custody of her husband and she is not aware as to how, same came into the possession of the respondent company . Taking up of this contradictory plea that cheque Ex CW-1/7 was in the custody of her husband by the appellant at the stage of defence evidence is nothing but an afterthought and has been taken up just to wriggle out of her liability.
24. Even otherwise to rebut the presumption U/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, husband of appellant has not been examined as a witness in defence by the appellant as he was the best witness who could have proved that the cheque Ex Cw-1/7 was in his possession and was not with the complainant/respondent. Further the appellant has not been able to explain that in case cheque Ex CW-1/7 was given to her husband then how it came into the custody of respondent/complainant and how it came to be drawn in favour of the respondent's company. On the contrary, admission made by the appellant of having issued the cheque Ex Pw-1/7 for the purpose of guarantee demolishes her defence. Hence on this plea also no interference is called in the impugned judgment.
25.Lastly in the appeal, impugned sentence order has been assailed on the ground that ld. trial court has imposed fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which is in violation of Section 29(2) Cr.P.C. I am unable to agree with the contention of appellant as impugned sentence order reflects that Rs.2,00,000/- is not fine amount, as claimed by the CA NO: 45/13 16/17 Mrs.Talvinder Sabharwal Vs. M/s.Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd.
CA NO: 45/13 appellant, but is a compensation, which has been awarded to the complainant/respondent U/s 357 Cr.P.C. Section 29(2) Cr.P.C prescribe the limit on the amount of fine which the Magistrate can impose but there is no limit to the grant of compensation U/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. However it is settled law that compensation has to be just and reasonable. The cheque in question is of Rs. 1,32,000/- and the same was issued way back on 26.02.2010, whereas the impugned sentence order was passed on 26.03.2012, that is after lapse of three years from the date of issuing of cheque. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is reasonable one as it has taken into account, the loss on interest on the cheque amount for around three years and the litigation expenses which the complainant had incurred while prosecuting the present case. Therefore Ld. trial court had awarded reasonable compensation to the respondent/complainant and no interference is called for even in the impugned sentence order.
26.In the light of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality either in the impugned judgment or in the sentence order. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 17.08.2013 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
CA NO: 45/13 17/17