Delhi District Court
J.B. Exports Ltd. vs M/S Nilesh Exports on 31 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE/NEW DELHI
CC NO. 9349/1
In the matter of:
J.B. Exports Ltd.,
A20, Mohan Cooperative,
Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi110044
Complainant....................
Versus
1.M/s Nilesh Exports C134, Hosiery Complex PhaseII, Noida And also at:
D40, Panchseel Enclave New Delhi
2. Mr. Saurav Seth C134, Hosiery Complex PhaseII, Noida And also at:
D40, Panchseel Enclave New Delhi
3. Mr. Gaurav Seth J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 1 of 29 C134, Hosiery Complex PhaseII, Noida And also at:
D40, Panchseel Enclave New Delhi Accused.....................
Date of institution:21.09.2001 Date of reserving judgement/Order:16.05.2012 Date of Pronouncement of Judgement/Order:31.05.2012 Brief statement of reasons for such decisions :
1. Vide this common Judgment, I propose to dispose off seven complaints u/s 138 NI Act pending interse same parties bearing CC No. 9349/1, 9361/01, 9360/1, 9362/1, 9367/1, 9355/1 & 9368/1. The dispute under consideration in all the 7 complaints is same, however, with different cheques involved in all the 7 complaints pertaining to same transaction. Even common evidence has been led by both the parties in all the 7 complaints. All the 7 complaints have been filed by Mr. V.K. Jain as Authorized Representative of the complainant company against the same accused.
In the complaint CC No. 9355/1, it has been submitted that the accused no. 1 M/s Nilesh Exports which is engaged in the business of export of garments and the accused no. 2 & 3 were partners in the aforesaid firm and were primarily responsible for controlling/running and managing the business and affairs of the accused no. 1 firm jointly and severally. It is alleged that accused no. 2 & 3 had issued various cheques in favour of complainant for clearing and discharging their liabilities as partners of accused no. 1. It is alleged that the said cheques also included a cheque bearing no. 052407 dated J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 2 of 29 12.10.2000 for a sum of Rs. 42,740/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 as part of their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo dated 18.10.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Upon the receipt of dishonoured cheque, the complainant contacted the accused and apprised them about the same and the accused expressed their regrets and stated that the same could not be honoured on account of some financial difficulties being faced by them and on assurance of accused, the cheque was represented again on 17.11.2000, however, the complainant once again was shocked to learn from their bankers that the aforesaid cheque was once again returned back dishonoured by accused's banker alongwith cheque returning memo dated 18.11.2000 on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC to the accused to discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
Again in CC No. 9368/1, it is averred by complainant that the another cheque bearing no. 052248 dated 18.09.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 was issued by the accused as part payment towards their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was returned by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo dated 09.10.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Upon the receipt of dishonoured cheque, the complainant contacted the accused and apprised them about the same and the accused expressed their regrets and stated that the same could not be honoured on account of some financial difficulties being faced by them and on assurance of accused, the cheque was represented again on 17.11.2000, however, the complainant once again shocked to learn from their bankers that the aforesaid cheque was once again returned back dishonoured by accused's J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 3 of 29 banker alongwith cheque returning memo dated 18.11.2000 on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC dated 01.12.2000 to the accused for to clear up/discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
In CC No. 9349/1, on similar allegations, in addition, the complainant has averred that another cheque bearing no. 052445 dated 15.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 was also issued by the accused as part payment towards their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was also returned by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo dated 18.11.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC dated 01.12.2000 to the accused to clear up/discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
In CC No. 9361/01, on similar allegations, in addition, the complainant has averred that accused issued another cheque bearing no. 052446 dated 16.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 as part of their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was returned by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo dated 18.11.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC dated 01.12.2000 to the accused for to clear up/discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
In CC No. 9360/1, on similar allegations, in addition, the complainant has J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 4 of 29 averred that the accused issued another cheque bearing no. 052448 dated 18.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 47,117/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 as part of their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was returned by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo dated 18.11.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC dated 01.12.2000 to the accused for to clear up/discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
In CC No. 9367/1, on similar allegations, in addition, the complainant has averred that the accused also issued another cheque bearing no. 052443 dated 13.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 as part of their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was returned by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo dated 17.11.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC dated 01.12.2000 to the accused for to clear up/discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
In CC No. 9362/1, on similar allegations, in addition, the complainant has averred that the accused issued another cheque bearing no. 052444 dated 14.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ drawn on Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi 110019 as part of their total liability. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the accused on the current Account No. CD 11665 and was signed by the accused no. 2. On presentation, the said cheque was returned by the Bankers of the accused vide cheque returning memo J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 5 of 29 dated 17.11.2000 clearly showing that the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2000 vide registered AD post and UPC dated 01.12.2000 to the accused for to clear up/discharge their liability within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, however, to no avail.
2. In CC No. 9355/1 and 9368/1, On the basis of material on record, the accused were summoned by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 07.08.2002. Accused appeared in the court on 06.10.2005 and they were admitted to bail. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 Cr. PC for the offence U/s 138 NI Act was settled against accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 10.10.2005 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In CC No. 9349/1, 9361/01, 9360/1, 9367/1, 9362/1, On the basis of material on record, the accused were summoned by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 24.04.2002. Accused appeared in the court on 06.10.2005 and they were admitted to bail. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 Cr. PC for the offence U/s 138 NI Act was settled against accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 10.10.2005 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, common evidence was led in all the 7 complaints by the parties. The complainant examined two witnesses Mr. Victor Nicodemus as CW 1 and Mr. Ramesh Pandey as CW 2.
(i) CW 1 Mr. Victor Nicodemus has filed his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. CW. He has deposed exactly on the lines of his main complaint in CC No. 9355/1.
Complainant has proved on record the following documents:
(a) Cheque bearing no. 052407 dated 12.10.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 6 of 29 9355/1)
(b) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3 (in CC No. 9355/1)
(c) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4 (in CC No. 9355/1)
(d) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly) (in CC No. 9355/1).
(e) Cheque bearing no. 052248 dated 18.09.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. 9368/1) (f) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3 (in CC No. 9368/1) (g) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4 (in CC No. 9368/1) (h) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly) (in CC No. 9368/1) (i) Cheque bearing no. 052445 dated 15.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. 9349/1) (j) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3 (in CC No. 9349/1) (k) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4 (in CC No. 9349/1) (l) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly)(in CC No. 9349/1) (m) Cheque bearing no. 052446 dated 16.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. 9361/01) (n) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3 (in CC No. 9361/01) (o) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4(in CC No. 9361/01) (p) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly)(in CC No. 9361/01) (q) Cheque bearing no. 052448 dated 18.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. 9360/1) (r) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3(in CC No. 9360/1) (s) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4(in CC No. 9360/1) J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 7 of 29 (t) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly)(in CC No. 9360/1) (u) Cheque bearing no. 052443 dated 13.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. 9367/1) (v) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3(in CC No. 9367/1) (w) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4(in CC No. 9367/1) (x) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly)(in CC No. 9367/1) (y) Cheque bearing no. 052444 dated 14.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/2 (in CC No. 9362/1) (z) Cheque returning memo as Ex. CW 1/3(in CC No. 9362/1) (zi) Legal notice dated 29.11.2000 as Ex. CW 1/4(in CC No. 9362/1) (zii) Speed post receipts, UPC, acknowledgement cards, AD cards as Ex. CW 1/5 (colly)(in CC No. 9362/1)
In his cross examination held on 08.11.2006 (adopted in all seven complaints), CW 1 Mr. Victor Nicodemus deposed that the complainant company was a limited company under the companies act and maintained all the statutory records as required under the law. The board meeting for authorizing him in respect of the cases, where the resolution Ex. CW 1/1 was held at the registered office of the company at A20, Mathura Road on 11.04.2005. He deposed that their company maintained the minutes book where the board resolution passed were duly entered. He further deposed that he could not say whether the resolution authorizing him was duly entered in the minutes book maintained by the company for the purpose. He further deposed that he had not brought the minutes book, however, he can produce the same after consulting the legal department, personal and administrative department of the company.
He further deposed that before signing his affidavit filed in evidence Ex. CW, he has carefully gone through the records of the company pertaining to the case(s) J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 8 of 29 and the documents filed alongwith the complaint. The nature of business of the complainant company was 'export of readymade garments'. He further deposed that their company was mainly catering to export market and not to the domestic market. He admitted that it was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or his affidavit as to how the liability from the accused accrued to the complainant company. He further admitted that in the complaint or in his affidavit, it was nowhere mentioned that how much amount as total liability was due from the accused towards part discharge of which the cheque in question was issued.
In his further cross examination recorded on 27.07.2007, he produced minute book and the same was shown to the Ld. Defence Counsel). He admitted that in CC No. 818 and 821, he has mentioned in his affidavit that the cheque in dispute has been signed by accused no. 2. He volunteered that this has been done inadvertently since there were 7 cases between the parties and in these complaints the cheque's have been signed by accused no. 3. He further deposed that he was aware that in garment exports there was 'Quota System' for exporting garments to Canada, USA etc. He admitted that Quota certificates could be transferred/sold/purchased by one exporter to other. He admitted that the cheques in dispute were given by the accused against the transfer of their quota in their favour and that these cheques were given in September 2000. He denied the suggestion that the quota was not transferred by them in favour of the accused inspite of receiving these cheques. He further deposed that as per their records, a quota of 40393/ square meters @ Rs. 20/ per square meter was agreed to be transferred to the accused. He admitted that prior to that transfer approval of AEPC was required. He stated that as per their records, this entire quota was transferred in favour of accused. The original certificates have been given by AEPC to the accused with respect to this transfer and was not in their possession. He deposed that he can file the photocopies thereof after verification from their record. He denied the suggestion that they only supplied 14637 square meters to the accused. He denied the suggestion that AEPC was required to send them a copy of the transfer certificates. The original certificates were surrendered by the J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 9 of 29 transferor to AEPC for purpose of recording the entry of transfer of quota at the end of the calender year and once the quota was transferred they as transferors were not given back the original certificates by AEPC. He deposed that the original certificates could be in the possession of AEPC only. He admitted that the original certificate was returned to them by AEPC after recording the entry of transfer in favour of accused. He volunteered that the same was surrendered back by them at the end of the year 2000. He further deposed that they may have retained a photocopy. He further deposed that he has to check from his records.
In his further cross examination recorded on 13.12.2007, he deposed that after verification from their record, the photocopies of the APEC certificates were not available with them. He however produced a register claiming to be maintained in their ordinary course of business recording therein what all quotas were transferred to their clients. He admitted that the register brought by him did not reflect as to how much quota was transferred to which client. He further deposed that according to him, it was page mark 'X' (OSR) which interalia reflected the transfer of the quotas to the accused. He admitted that the name of the accused was not mentioned on this page. He further deposed that he was deposing this fact on the basis that the quantities shown in red colour (the said entries which were in red colour in original register have been highlighted in the photocopies by means of highlighter) were the ones that reflected the transactions with the accused and the quantities of quota match with the quantities reflected in the photocopies of the AEPC certificates shown to him. He admitted that only four certificates Mark X1, X2, X3 and X4 have been shown to him. He denied the suggestion that apart from the quotas reflected in these certificates no other quota was transferred in favour of accused and that is why he has no other photocopies. He admitted that he has not maintained or prepared the register brought by him and he has only on the basis of matching the four entries with the certificates shown have deposed that all entries in 'red' reflect the transactions with the accused and he has also stated this because the sum total of all the red entries approximately comes to 40393. He admitted that on the other pages J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 10 of 29 of the register also there were entries in red which did not pertain to the accused. He further deposed that they did not wish to produce any account in support of their case though the accounts in the name of the accused would also be maintained. He denied the suggestion that apart from the quotas reflected in Mark X1, X2, X3 and X4 no other quota was transferred to the accused. He further deposed that they have been paid only Rs. 1 Lakh towards the transfer of the quota by the accused and i.e. payment vide cheque no. 52247 dated 18.09.2000 which was cleared on 03.10.2000. He also admitted that some other payments in cash were also made by the accusedhe could verify the exact amount paid by the accused after verification from the account department and he would produce the statement of account only if he was authorized by the company to do so on the next date of hearing.
In his further cross examination held on 14.05.2008, CW 1 deposed that he has brought the account statement pertaining to all/entire dealings and transactions complainant's company had with the accused no. 1. He stated that it was the true statement maintained by the complainant company in the usual and ordinary course of business and same was Ex. CW 1/X bearing his signatures at point A. He admitted that all the cheques which were subject matter of the seven complaints pending before this Court find mention in this account statement i.e. Ex. CW 1/X which was filed in case No. 9355/04.
He denied the suggestion that the accused were not liable to pay any amount to the complainant in respect of the cheques in question in the present complaint. He denied the suggestion that the cheques in question in this complaint were taken in advance and were being utilized by the complainant company to cause wrongful gain and to harass the accused knowing fully well that nothing was due to the complainant, with dishonest and ulterior motive. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on behest of the company.
(ii) Thereafter, complainant examined Sh. Ramesh Pandey, Senior Manager, J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 11 of 29 from Syndicate Bank, FX Branch, Cannaught Place, Delhi as CW 2 who deposed that he has not brought the account statement of M/s J.B. Exports Ltd. with their branch except account opening forms, since as per the guidelines of RBI as the records were very old i.e. More than 8 years. All the records have been destroyed. Copy of Manual Instructions Vol. V, 2006 was Ex. CW 1/A (OSR) containing such instructions was filed in CC No. 9355/1. He recognized the copy of the bank account statement dated 30.11.2000 and deposed that it was issued by their bank, the same was marked as MarkX containing 2 pages.
In his cross examination, he deposed that their branch was headed by the Chief Manager who was his superior officer in the branch. He stated that since, 11.09.2006, he has been working as Senior Manager. He further deposed that he was posted in this branch on 22.12.2008. He admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the account of M/s J.B. Exports Ltd. with their branch. He admitted that the Copy of the bank account statement dated 30.11.2000 (MarkX) did not bear any signature's or stamp or seal of their bank / branch and / or any of the official of their bank / branch. He further deposed that he could not verify the authenticity / correctness of this statement or the contents of this account statement, which has been produced / shown by the complainant.
4. The above examination in chief and cross examination of both complainant witnesses recorded in complaint CC No. 9355/1 was adopted by the parties in other connected six complaints interse parties. No other witness was examined by complainant in post summoning evidence and the matter was fixed for SA.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC r/w 281 Cr. PC on 23.08.2011. They denied that they had issued all the cheque's in dispute in J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 12 of 29 favour of complainant against a legal liability. The cheque's in dispute were issued as advance towards supply of quota for export of garments. There was no liability against the disputed cheque's in question. They stated that it was a matter of record that the said cheque's were dishonoured on presentation by their Bank vide cheque returning memo's placed on record. They stated that it was a matter of record that the cheque's were dishonoured with remarks 'Funds Insufficient.' They denied that on dishonouring of the cheque's, legal demand notice was served upon them by the complainant which was sent through postal receipts, UPC and AD cards. They further deposed that as they did not receive any legal notice, therefore, there was no question of making payment to complainant. They further deposed that the cheque's in question were issued as advance for supply of export quota which was never supplied to them and even they were assured that the cheque's in question would be returned back to them. They stated that it was purely malafide intentions of the complainant that the complainant company has filed cases against them. They declined to lead DE and hence, DE was closed. Matter was posted for final arguments.
6. I have heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of complainant and on behalf of the accused in all complaints. I have also gone through the common written submissions filed on behalf of parties in all the 7 complaints.
7. Counsel for complainant has argued that all the ingredients for constituting an offence u/s 138 NI Act were made out and proved against the accused in the present case. He argued that issuance of cheques and the signatures on the cheques were admitted by accused. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation vide cheuqe returning memos proved in all the 7 complaints for the reasons 'Insufficient Funds.' He further argued that apart from a bald denial made by the accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr. PC r/w 281 J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 13 of 29 Cr. PC and the statutory notice u/s 138 NI Act was not served upon them, no evidence had been led by accused to rebut the presumption of due service u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act. He further argued that all the complaints were filed by the complainant within limitation and the accused have failed to issue any instructions to its Bankers to stop payment of the cheques in question as the same were not to be presented for encashment as there was no liability towards the complainant. The accused have not lead DE to explain the circumstances under which the cheque came to be issued and dishonoured as also in support of their plea that there existed no liability towards the complainant. He further argued that no application u/s 145 (2) NI Act for cross examination of CWs or to raise any evidence was ever filed by the accused and hence in view of the presumption u/s 139 NI Act unless the contrary is proved, the holder of a cheque has received the cheque for discharge of a liability. He further argued that it was the accused who has to lead affirmative evidence to demonstrate that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of any liability. Counsel for complainant has also relied upon the following Judgements:
(i) Harbans Lal Malik & Ors Vs Payal Malik, 171 (2010) DLT 67
(ii) Investor Plaza Vs Vijay Sachdeva & Ors, 181 (2011) DLT 675
(iii) V.S. Yadav Vs Reena, 172 (2010) DLT 561
8. Counsel for accused has also filed written submissions and submitted that complainant has totally failed to prove its case as no legal liability in respect of the cheque's could be proved by the complainant. He argued that it was one of the essential ingredient for attracting offence u/s 138 NI Act that the cheque must have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability, however, the complainant neither in his complaint nor in the affidavit filed in evidence has mentioned as to how the liability in respect of the cheque's in question accrued in favour of complainant for which debt or J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 14 of 29 liability the cheques in question were issued.
9. To bring home conviction U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act the prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as under:
(a) That a cheque have been presented in a bank within period of 6 months from the date on which it is drawn or within a period of its validity.
(b) The said cheque should have been issued for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or other liability.
(c) The cheque should have been returned by the bank unpaid due to reason of insufficient funds or that it exceed is amount arranged to be paid from that account.
(d) The payee or holder in due course makes the demand of payment of the said loan of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of cheque within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
(amended to 30 days vide Act 55 of 2002)
(e) The drawer of said cheque fails to make the payment to the payee or holder in due course within 15 days of receipt of said notice and
(f) Where the accused is a company and person working in a company are also made an accused then the prosecution is required to prove that the said person working in the company was incharge and responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business to make him vicariously liable.
It is on the fulfillment of the abovementioned ingredients that a person can be prosecuted U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
10. In all the 7 complaints, there is no dispute between the parties in regard to issuance of cheques or in regard to the signatures of the accused on the cheques. Even no dispute has been raised by the accused in regard to the limitation. It is also not disputed that the cheques in question were dishonoured on presentation with remarks 'Insufficient J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 15 of 29 Funds.' The accused however submitted that they have never received the legal notice Ex. CW 1/5. They further raised the contention that the cheques in question in all the 7 complaints bearing no. CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 were issued towards advance for supply of 'export quota' which was never supplied to them and they were even assured that the cheque's in question would be returned back to them and it was purely malafide intentions of the complainant that the complainant company has filed all these seven complaints against them.
11. Taking into consideration the entire facts coming up on record, I am satisfied that the ingredient's at serial no. (a) and (c) are duly proved.
12. The accused raised the plea that they have never received the legal notice, however, the complainant in his complaint has duly proved UPC and registered AD receipts dated 01.12.2000 collectively proved as Ex. CW 1/5 in all the connected complaints. The accused has never stated that the addresses mentioned in the UPC and registered AD receipts were incorrect. Even in cross examination of AR for complainant, the accused has not raised any suggestion to the effect that the legal notice was served upon them or not. The presumption has to be raised under section 27 of the General Clause Act that the legal notices were duly served upon the accused once the legal notice's were sent through registered AD at correct address of the accused.
13. I am fortified in my reasoning by the following Judgements:
(a) Archana Publications (P) Ltd. Vs State of Delhi 93 (2001) DLT 225.
(b) Charanjit Singh Vs P C Nanda and Sons 2001 (57) DRJ 690
(c) V Raja Kumari Vs P Subbarama Naidu All India Crl. Law Reporter
2005 (1)
(d) Gujarat Electricity Board Vs Atmaram AIR 1989 SC 1433
(e) Prakash Jewellers Vs A K Jewellers 99 (2002) DLT 244
J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports
CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 16 of 29
14. Further, it is settled principle of law that the burden to rebut the presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act lies on the party challenging the factum of the service. In this regard, reference can be made to the para 8 of the Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled 'Gujarat Electricity Board Vs Atmaram AIR 1989 SC 1433' wherein it has held "There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same, no doubt the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same.
15. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party, challenging the factum of service. The accused however has nowhere disputed that the address mentioned on the legal notice's were incorrect. The accused have refused to lead DE. Hence, there is no evidence coming upon record contrary to the presumption. Also while cross examining the complainant, no suggestion was raised to the complainant that the legal notice's were never served. Hence, I am satisfied that all the legal notice's having been sent through Registered AD and UPC at correct address's were duly served upon the accused.
16. Hence, the only contention remaining in all the 7 complaints to be determined vide this Judgement is whether all these cheques in all the 7 complaints were issued by the accused in discharge of a legal debt or liability or not. On perusal of record, it is revealed that in none of its complaints, the complainant has mentioned as to against what liability all the cheques in question in all the 7 complaints were issued. The only allegation raised by the complainant is that the accused no. 2 & 3 have issued various cheques in favour of complainant for clearing and discharging their liabilities as partners of the accused no. 1 Company. Even in the legal notice issued by the complainant and in J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 17 of 29 the affidavit's filed by way of evidence, the complainant has no where mentioned as to against what transaction or liability the cheques in question were issued by accused, only after perusal of record and considering the testimony of all the witnesses examined, it could be clarified that all the cheques in question were allegedly issued by the accused against transfer of an 'export quota' of 40393 square meters of garment by the complainant to the accused. In his cross examination, however, AR for complainant has made some important admissions:
He admitted that it was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or his affidavit filed in evidence as to how the liability from the accused accrued to the complainant company.
He further admitted that in the complaint or in his affidavit, it was nowhere mentioned that how much amount as total liability was due from the accused towards part discharge of which the cheque's in question were issued.
17. In his further cross examination, he also stated that he was aware that in garment exports there was Quota System for exporting garments to Canada, USA etc. He admitted that Quota certificates could be transferred/sold/purchased by one exporter to other. He further admitted that the cheques in dispute were issued by the accused against the transfer of quota in their favour and that these cheques were given in September 2000, however, he denied the suggestion that the quota was not transferred by complainant in favour of the accused inspite of receiving these cheques. He has further stated that as per their records, a quota of 40393/ square meters @ Rs. 20/ per square meter was agreed to be transferred to the accused. He also admitted that prior to that transfer approval of AEPC was required. He further stated that as per the record of the complainant, the entire quota was transferred in favour of accused and the original certificates have been given by AEPC to the accused with respect to this transfer and was not in possession of the complainant. He further stated that the original certificates J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 18 of 29 were surrendered by the transferor to AEPC for purpose's of recording the entry of transfer of quota at the end of the calender year and once the quota is transferred they as transferors were not given back the original certificates by AEPC. He further stated that the original certificates could be in the possession of AEPC only, however, in further cross examination, he admitted that the original certificate's were returned to them by AEPC after recording the entry of transfer in favour of accused.
He further volunteered the same was surrendered back by them at the end of the year 2000 and they may have retained a photocopy. The said certificates however were never produced by the complainant on record nor even the photocopies of the same have been produced by the complainant.
In his cross examination, he admitted that after verification from records, it was found that even the photocopies of the AEPC certificates were not available with the complainant.
Thereafter, this witness produced a register submitting that the same was maintained by the complainant in its ordinary course of business recording therein what all quotas were transferred to their clients. However, he admitted that the register produced by him does not reflect as to how much quota was transferred to which client. He also admitted that the name of the accused was not mentioned on the page 'Mark X.' He has further deposed that he was deposing this fact on the basis that the quantities shown in red colour (the said entries which were in red colour in original register have been highlighted in the photocopies by means of highlighter) were the ones that reflect the transactions with the accused and the quantities of quota match with the quantities reflected in the photocopies of the AEPC certificates shown to him. He admitted that only four certificates Mark X1, X2, X3 and X4 have been shown to him in the Court. He admitted that he has not maintained or prepared the register produced by him and he has only on the basis of matching the four entries with the certificates shown have deposed that all entries in red reflect the transactions with the accused. He further J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 19 of 29 stated that the total sum of all the red entries approximately comes to 40393. He admitted that on the other pages of the register also there were entries in 'red' which does not pertain to the accused. He deposed categorically that the complainant does not wish to produce any account in support of their case though the accounts in the name of the accused were also maintained.
In his further cross examination, the witness also produced one account statement pertaining to all/entire the dealings and transactions complainant's company had/has with the accused no. 1. He stated that it was true statement that Ex. CW 1/X was prepared by the complainant company in the usual and ordinary course of business. He admitted that all the cheques which were subject matter of the seven complaints pending before this Court find mention in this account statement i.e. Ex. CW 1/X which was filed in case No. 9355/04.
18. From the examination and cross examination of AR for complainant, it has come up that all the 7 cheques which were subject matter of consideration in these complaints have been allegedly issued by the accused towards the transfer of 'export quota' by the complainant to the accused. It is the case of the complainant that export quota of 40393/ square meters @ Rs. 20/ per square meter was agreed to be transferred to the accused whereas as per the accused, despite agreement the complainant has only supplied 14637 square meters to the accused. The complainant in my considered view has failed to prove on record that quota of 40393 was transferred by the complainant to the accused. The complainant witness has admitted that before transfer, approval of AEPC was required. The complainant has failed to produce any approval from AEPC or even photocopies of the same on record to prove that the said quota was transferred by the complainant. He has failed to examine any witness from AEPC who could have produced or proved the said approval on record. Further despite his undertaking, AR for complainant could not produce on record photocopies of the said approval on record. It was important on part of the complainant to examine some witness from AEPC to prove J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 20 of 29 the said approvals or to produce atleast photocopies of the said approvals. Since, no such witness was examined, it can be presumed that if the said witness was examined, the same was disadvantageous to the accused as was held in Hiten P Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 (3) CC Cases SC 45. However, subsequently, the witness has produced one register which he has stated that the same was maintained in the ordinary course of business showing 'Mark X,' as the page mentioned details of transaction with accused, however, in his cross examination, CW has admitted that the name of the accused was not mentioned in it.
19. On perusal of photocopy of Mark X 1, it is revealed that it is only a copy of statement of accused maintained by the Syndicate Bank pertaining to the complainant. In this document Mark X, nowhere it is mentioned that as to against what transaction, the cheque's shown have been issued were returned or withdrawn. Nowhere in the said statement, name of the accused company is mentioned. There are only details showing the deposit/withdrawal of cheques in dispute. It is found that some entries were made in the said document pertaining to the cheques in question therein showing either the depositing, withdrawal or returning of said cheques. Nothing more than that has been mentioned in the said document. It is very clear that the said document does not reflect as to how much quota is transferred to which client which was also admitted by CW 1.
20. The said document 'Mark X' does not show as to how much quota was transferred and in whose name. The AR for complainant has admitted in his cross examination that the document does not bear the name of the accused or the party to which quota was transferred. The complainant subsequently produced one account statement Ex. CW 1/X. The Ex. CW 1/X is a ledger account reportedly prepared by the complainant therein showing transactions with the accused Company M/s Nilesh Exports.
21. On bare perusal of Ex. CW 1/X, it is found that it is a copy of ledger account J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 21 of 29 pertaining to complainant again showing the details of certain cheques including the cheques in dispute. On perusal of account statement also, it is clear that it does not reflect any entry or amount shown as debited towards supply of quota to the accused or amount showing outstanding against the accused. The said document also does not show as to how much quota is being transferred to which party. The complainant hence has failed to produce or prove on record either any document to show the transfer of 40393/ square meters of quota or the originals or the photocopies of the AEPC certificates of transfer of the said quantity of quota to the accused. The complainant has failed to produce on record any document to show transfer of the export quota as alleged. The document Mark X 1 and Ex. CW 1/X as produced by complainant are not corelating to the allegations made by the complainant. The said document does not in any way prove that the 'export quota' of 40393 sq. meters was transferred by the complainant to the accused. The said documents even does not mention as to who much quota was transferred to which company or firm. It is clear that the requisite and necessary records have not been produced by complainant despite his undertaking to produce the same on record. The complainant has failed to produce any relevant document which could prove that export quota was transferred to accused firm to prove liability of the accused. Since, the record has not been produced by complainant an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant that in case proper Statement of Account, Purchase Vouchers or AEPC certificates were produced the same would have been disadvantageous to the complainant. The production of the said document was material in proving the liability of the accused once the accused has categorically disputed the same. The complainant, however, has choosen not to produce the record despite clear denial by the accused hence an adverse interence has to be drawn against the complainant. Though the arguments raised on behalf of complainant in regard to the presumption u/s 118 and 139 NI Act exists however, the same is a rebuttable presumption. It is well settled law in terms of Section 139 NI Act that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt's, the burden on the accused is only upto mere preponderance of probability. In this regard, J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 22 of 29 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hiten P Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 (3) CC Cases SC 45 wherein para 22 has held as under:
"Judicial statements have differed as to the quantum of rebutting evidence required. In Kundan Lal Rallaram Vs Custodian, Evacue Property, Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1316, this court held that the presumption of law under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act could be rebutted in certain circumstances by a presumption of fact raised under section 114 of the Evidence Act. The decision must be limited to the facts of that case. The more authoritative view has been laid down in the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in Dhanvantrai Balwantai Desai Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 575, where this court reiterated the principle enunciated in State of Madras Vs Vaidyanath Iyer (Supra) and clarified that the distinction between the two kinds of presumption lay not only in the mandate to the court, but also in the nature of evidence required to rebut the two. In the case of a discretionary presumption the presumption if drawn may be rebutted by an explanation which "might reasonably be true and which is consistent with the innocence" of the accused. On the other hand in the case of a mandatory presumption, "the burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under S. 14 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason on the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words "unless the contrary is proved" which occur in this provisions make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted."
Also, it is not necessary that the accused must step into the witness box to discharge the burden of proof. There is no doubt or dispute that whereas the standard of proof so far as the prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 23 of 29 the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of probability.
22. The inference therefor can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon. It is clear that the burden of proof is not so high on him as that of the prosecution. For rebutting the presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. The accused persons have categorically stated that the cheques were issued as advance towards supply of export quota which was never supplied to them. The said defence is certainly acceptable as probable if the cheques were issued for security the same should not fall u/s 138 NI Act. In this regard, following Judgements can be also relied upon. In Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808, it was observed that:
"One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view of our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence may show him to be guilty of the offences with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. 'There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 24 of 29 such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption.' The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even through it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal."
In Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v.
Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35 interpreting Section 118 (a) of the Act, it was observed that:
"Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges it that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 (a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the nonexistence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 25 of 29 preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the nonexistence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118 (a) in his favour. The Court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt."
It was also held in Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde that:
"We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic lift of a developing country like India. This, however, shall not mean that the Courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 26 of 29 namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same."
23. It was vehemently argued on behalf of complainant that in the light of admission made by accused that he is the signatory of cheque in question, the factual basis for raising the presumption u/s 139 NI Act arising in favour of the complainant. He further submitted that the fact that the cheques were issued in discharge of liability was well proved from the same. However, as observed above, it is well settled that such presumption is rebuttable and the accused can rebut the same by proving to the contrary. Now it has to be seen from evidence led on record whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act or not. The defence of the accused is that only 14637 square meters of quota was released by the complainant to the accused for which already payments were made, however, all the cheques in 7 complaints were issued only as advance for supply of export quota which was never supplied to accused and despite assurance that all the cheques would be returned back to them, the complainant company with malafide intentions has filed present complaints against them.
24. As observed above, the testimony of the only material witness appearing for complainant i.e. CW 1 is found to be full of contradictions and is not consistent with the affirmation made in the complaint and in the legal notice. In view of aforesaid and in view of the cross examination of CW 1, the accused has well rebutted the presumption u/s 139 NI Act, the accused has certainly raised a probable defence which has created a strong doubt over the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. In Rangappa Vs J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 27 of 29 Sri Mohan, 2010 (11) SCC 441 also, it was held that for the purpose's of proving probable defence, the accused can rely on material submitted by complainant in order to raise such defence and it is conceivable that in some of the cases accused may not need to adduce evidence. In M.S. Narayan Menon Vs State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39" & in "K. Prakashnan Vs P.K. Surendran, 2008 (1) SCC 258" it has clearly observed that for rebutting presumption u/s 139 NI Act and for raising probable defence, accused need not appear in witness box and can rebut the presumption from the material on record. In these circumstances, the onus to prove the liability shifted back upon the prosecution/complainant to prove the existence of debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt's in respect of cheques in question which complainant has failed to do so in all the complaints. From my observations made in para no. 17, 18 & 19 above, it is very clear that the complainant has totally failed to prove existence of any legal debt or liability on the accused. From the testimony of CW 1 itself, the contentions raised by the complainant in regard to supply of export quota is unproved, unbelievable and does not inspire confidence of the Court due to contrary submissions made by CW 1 in his examination. The testimony is full of contradictions and is not credit worthy.
25. Furthermore, the accused categorically admitted that some quota was supplied to them and payments were made against the same and documents were placed on record and the same were admitted by the complainant on record. The complainant however has failed to prove that the 'export quota' as alleged was supplied by the complainant to the accused against which all the cheques in dispute were issued. As already observed, no corroborating evidence in the form of proper Account Books, agreement etc. were produced or proved on record by the accused and hence, it is not proved whether infact the complainant has delivered the 'export quota' to the accused or not. It seems that accused had issued the said cheques in advance for supply of export quota which was never supplied to them and all the seven complaints were filed on the basis of said cheque's.
J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 28 of 29
26. Apart from strong defence raised by accused, there are circumstances also which compel this Court to conclude that the defence raised by the accused is believable and trustworthy. The complainant has never disclosed in his legal notice, complaint or in affidavit filed in evidence as to how much total amount as mentioned in the cheques in question became due to the complainant from the accused. Nowhere in his affidavit or in complaint, the complainant has mentioned as to against what transaction the cheques in question were issued. AR for complainant himself admitted in his cross examination that the complainant has received Rs. 1,00,000/ towards the transfer of the quota vide cheque bearing no. 52247 dated 18.09.2000. He also admitted that some other payment's were also made by accused. It certainly shows the bonafide's of the accused.
27. In view of the abovesaid discussions and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has failed to prove on record any legal liability on accused and hence, all the accused are entitled to an acquittal in all seven complaints CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 interse parties for the offence U/s 138 NI Act. All the said seven complaints hence stand dismissed. Accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Let copy of Judgement be placed separately in each complaint bearing CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1.
Announced in the open court (SUDESH KUMAR) on 31.05.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE This judgment contains 29 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS pages and each page has NEW DELHI been signed by me. J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs M/s Nilesh Exports CC NO. 9349/1,9361/01,9360/1,9362/1,9367/1,9355/1 & 9368/1 29 of 29