Delhi District Court
Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal on 21 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 01, NI ACT, SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI.
CC NO. 288/1
SANJAY AGARWAL VS PIYUSH KUMAR SINGHAL
1. Complaint Case No. : 288/1
2. Name of the complainant : Sanjay Agarwal
Proprietor of M/s Mercury Computers
Having its main office at 201, PPH
House, 5E, Jhandewalan Extn.
New Delhi
3. Name of the accused : Piyush Kumar Singhal
parentage and residence Prop. Kumar Trading Agencies
Capri Trade Centre, Chakrata Road,
Dehraddon, Uttranchal
4. Offence complained of or proved: U/s 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : Convicted.
7. Date of Order : 21.06.2014.
1/9 CC No.288/1
Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sanjay Agarwal is the proprietor of M/s Mercury Computers and having its main office at 201, PPH House, 5E, Jhandewalan Extn New Delhi and is engaged in the business of distribution and sales of computers, its accessories and parts. It is further stated in the complaint that accused is also engaged in the business of sales of computers, computer parts etc in the name of proprietorship M/s Kumar Trading Agencies. It is stated in the complaint that the accused in order to make the payment on account of certain computer items purchased and services availed from the complainant and issued the cheque bearing No. 388775 dated 23.03.2006 amounting to Rs.1,48,000/- drawn on Oriental bank of Commerce, Rajpur Road, Dehradoon Ex.CW1/A.
2. It is stated in the complaint that when the said cheque was presented for encashment was returned back with remark 'Funds Insufficient' vide return memo Ex.CW1/B. A legal demand notice which is dated 23.10.2006 Ex.CW1/C was sent by the complainant through its lawyer vide receipt thereafter the accused failed to make the payment within the statutory period of 15 days and hence this criminal complaint was filed by the complainant.
3. Upon service of summons, the accused put his appearance on 23.04.2007. Notice was framed against the accused on 29.10.2007, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
4. To support its case, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 on 2/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal 30.06.2012.
5. In his cross-examination the CW1 stated that there was business dealing between the parties for a period of about one year during the period from the year 2004 to 2006. CW-1 further states that Ms Deepti Sangolkar was his employee during the period April to May 2005 and she works for him but not for M/s Mercury Computers. CW-1 further states that during the year 2005 the accused used to operate from Dehradun, Uttranchal and had also office during that period at Dehradun and Deepti Sanglokar used to look after the work. CW-1 further states that he closed down the office situate at Dehradun. CW-1 further states that the accused representd himself to be the proprietor of Kumar Trading Agency at his shop at Dehradun when he visited the same. CW-1 further states that the accused placed order for supply of computer goods over phone and the necessary bills regarding the same were issued by his office staff. CW-1 further states that goods worth approx. of Rs.2.10 lakhs were supplied to accused. CW-1 further states that towards the goods supplied, the accused did not pay me in cash for supply of goods. CW-1 further stated that the bills in respect of goods supplied to accused were raised in the name of Shiv Shakti Computer at Dehradun.
6. In further cross examination of CW-1 on 21.09.2012, CW-1 states that the cheque Ex.CW1/A and might have received at Dehradun Office or at the office of accused at Dehradun. CW-1 states that the cheque Ex.CW1/A was signed by the accused but the particulars thereon were filled by him i.e. the date, holders name, and amount in word and figures. CW-1 admits that he had not placed any invoice in the name of M/s Kumar Trading Agency and the invoices placed on record are in the name of Shiv Shakti Computers. CW-1 further states that the 3/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal documents Ex.CW1/2 to 11 were prepared by his employee and the handwriting appears on that documents are of Dipti Sangolkar. CW-1 admit that another complaint case u/s 138 NI Act filed by him against the accused in the name of Shiv Shakti Computers had already been settled/compromised.
7. Evidence was thereafter closed.
8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was thereafter was also recorded on 20.02.2013, wherein he stated that he had purchased computer parts/peripherals from Mercury Computers but he had dealt with Deepti Sangolkar, who was managing the affairs of Mercury Computers. Accused further submits that he had issued and delivered the cheque to Depti Sangolkar in blank to secure the payment of price of goods purchased by him from Mercury Computers. Accused further submits that he had made the payment in respect of the all goods ever purchased by him from Mercury Computers. Accused further submits that his brother Anuj Kumar is the proprietor of 'Kumar Trading Agency' and the said agency had not purchased any goods from the complainant.
9. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments as accused has no evident to lead defence evidence.
10.The accused examined himself as DW-1 and in his examination in chief stated that he reside in Dehradun. DW-1 further states that In the year 2005 he was having a shop at Dehradun and used to run computer shop. DW-1 further states that in the year 2005, in April and May, he was having dealing with one Ms. Dipti Sangolkar at Dehradun. DW-1 further states that they were under impression as per market 4/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal dealings with other person that Ms. Dipti Sangolkar was the owner of the firm M/s Mercury Computers running at Dehradun at that time. DW-1 further states that in April 2005 when he started dealing with Ms. Dipti Sangolkar, at Dehradun, she told me to give her one cheque as a security towards the future dealing and accordingly, he handed over one blank cheque only, as a security, signed by him but the other details were not mentioned therein to Ms. Dipti Sangolkar in April'05 at Dehradun. The said blank cheque in question of the present case i.e. Ex.CW1/A. DW-1 further states that the writings on the cheque i.e name, date and amount on the said cheque was not filled by me. DW-1 further states that Ms. Dipti Sangolkar supplied him the goods at several times in April - May 2005 and he received the goods for worth of Rs.1.25 to 1.50 lakhs. DW-1 further states that the necessary bills were issued by Ms. Dipti Sangolkar in the name of my firm M/s Shiv Shakti Computers at Dehradun. DW-1 further states that he also made the payment in cash to Ms. Dipti Sangolkar as she visited at his shop at Dehradun at several dates and he also visited at her office at Dehradun in April and May'05. DW-1 further states that he made the payment for about Rs.70,000/- to 80,000/- in cash to Ms. Dipti Sangolkar against the goods received by him in his firm M/s Shiv Shakti Computers at Dehradun. DW-1 further states that in June'05, the office managed by Ms. Dipti Sangolkar at Dehradun was closed and it was so closed because they had maligned their good will in the market because they were not entertaining the replacements sought by their purchasers. DW-1 further states that Ms. Dipti Sangolkar had not replaced the defective goods, sought by me to be replaced. DW-1 further states that Kumar Trading Agency is a firm wherein he and his mother Rukmani Singhal were partners. DW-1 further states that he retired from the firm - Kumar Trading Agency - in 2000 and his brother namely Anuj Kumar Singhal became the partner with his mother 5/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal thereafter. DW-1 further states that the firm Kumar Trading Agency dissolved in 2004 with the retirement of his mother from the said firm. DW-1 further states that thereafter the business of the firm was continued in the name - Kumar Trading Agency with Anuj Kumar Singhal as its proprietor. DW-1 further states that the complainant had never supplied goods to Kumar Trading Agency. DW-1 further states that when the cheque Ex.CW1/A was delivered he was authorised to operate the account on which the said cheque was drawn. DW-1 further states that the fact of retirement of his mother and himself from the firm Kumar Trading Agency was duly notified to Trade Tax Officer at Dehradun vide letter dt 24.8.2000 and letter received under receipt No 268356(dated 06.01.05). DW-1 further states that the letter dt 24.8.2000 was in my possession and the letter received under receipt No 268356(dated 06.01.05) was given to him by his father The said letters are now Ex.D-1 and D-2. The receipts issued by the Sales Tax Office in respect of the said letters are Ex.D-3 and D-4. DW-1 further states that since 2000 after his retirement, he was not concerned in any manner with the affairs of Kumar Trading Agency. DW-1 further states that Kumar Trading Agency is not liable in any sum of money to the complainant.
11.In cross examination of DW-1, he stated that in PHC court wherein the matter of M/s Shiv Shakti Computer was settled, he had received statement of account from complainant company and admits that the cheque which forms the subject matter of this complaint was not referred to/mentioned in the statement of account provided to him in that case.
12.In cross examination of DW-1 on 23.04.2014 stated that he had not filed any document/statement of account regarding the payment 6/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal against the bills Ex.CW1/2 to 11A. DW-1 further submits that the statement Ex.CW1/12 was provide to him at the time of settlement with Shiv Shakti Computer.
ARGUMENTS
13.During final arguments, It has been argued by the counsel for complainant that that the accused issued the cheque in question as he was the authorized signatory of Kumar Trading Agencies and was responsible for the day to day affairs of the aforesaid company. It was also argued that the accused has admitted the bills placed on record. It was also argued that Shiv Shakti Computers is run on the same premises and that the accused was the authorized signatory of both Shiv Shakti Computers and Kumar Trading Agency.
14.On the other hand, it has been argued by the defence counsel that the impugned cheque was given by the accused to an employee of the complainant in 2000 as security cheque which has been misused. It was also argued that the goods were issued to Shiv Shakti Computers and that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused.
15.From the perusal of the file it is seen that the complainant and the accused used to have regular business transactions with each other and were known to each other. It has been alleged by the accused that he was only an authorised signatory of Kumar Trading Agency and had retired from being a director. However, the communication ever made by the accused to the complainant to this effect has not been placed on record by the accused. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that 7/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal the accused has admitted to being the authorised signatory of Kumar Trading Agency. It implies that he has authorised to issue cheques on behalf of Kumar Trading Agency and it cannot be said that he has no connection with it.
16.It is also seen that the invoices placed on record are of Shiv Shakti Computers and the accused is admittedly a partner in the said firm. The liability of Shiv Shakti Computers has not been denied at any point of time by the accused during the trial. No questions were put to the complainant during his cross examination regarding the liability of Shiv Shakti Computers towards the complainant. It is not necessary that for the clearance of bills, the accused could only issue cheques of Shiv Shakti Computers In the present case, it is seen that the accused has issued cheques of Kumar Trading Agency of which he was the authorised signatory. The accused also did not examined any other witness to this effect that Kumar Trading Agency had no dealing with either the complainant or his firm as has been alleged by him.
17. The accused has also been unable to show that he had issued the cheque only for security purpose. No document has been placed on record to this effect and neither has the accused examined any person. Merely alleging that the impugned cheque was a security cheque and has been misused is not enough. The accused has not brought any evidence on record to prove this allegation.
18.In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is seen that the complainant is able to show that the accused issued the impugned cheque against a legal liability.
19.In view of the facts discussed above, the accused has been unable to 8/9 CC No.288/1 Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal rebut the presumption raised by virtue of section 118 of the NI Act, accordingly the accused - Piyush Kumar Singhal is hereby convicted of the offence.
21.Put up for order on sentence on 24.06.2014.
Announced in the Open Court
on 21.06.2014 (GURMOHINA KAUR)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURT:NEW DELHI
9/9 CC No.288/1
Sanjay Agarwal vs Piyush Kumar Singhal