Delhi District Court
Page No. 1 Of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal vs . M/S Crest Exports & Ors. on 21 August, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT) (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
SHAHDARA, DELHI.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
a) Serial No. of the case : 55434/16
b) Date of the commission of the offence : 28.12.2006
c) Name of the Complainant : Ms. Kajal Aggarwal
Prop. of M/s Lakshya Udyog
d) Name of Accused persons and
their parentage and residence : 1. M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd.
2. Vikram Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. B. L. Sachdeva
3. Vikas Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. B. L. Sachdeva,
R/o C31, Sec57, Noida, U.P.
e) Offence complained of : Dishonouring of cheques for the reason
" Insufficient Funds & Stop Payment by
Drawer".
f) Plea of the Accused and
his examination (if any) : Not guilty because security cheques were
issued and no fabrics were supplied by the
complainant to the accused.
g) Final Order : Accused No. 1 & 2 held guilty &
convicted. However, accused No. 3 is
acquitted.
h) Order reserved on : 10.08.2018.
i) Order pronounced on : 21.08.2018.
Page No. 1 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
2
Brief reasons for decision:
1. The necessary facts of the case of the complainant, as reflected in the complaint
are that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udyog dealing in trading of
export quality fabrics and accused has been purchasing fabrics from her said firm. The
complainant had supplied fabrics worth of Rs. 21,16,451/ from October 2005 to March
2006 besides previous outstanding due of Rs. 1,30,471/ and accused had paid just Rs.
8,20,000/ to her. It is also case of complainant that the accused had issued two cheques
bearing No. 600882 dt. 23.08.2006 Ex. CW1/1 & cheque No. 600883 dt. 25.08.2006 Ex.
CW1/2 for Rs. 7,13,461/ (each) to discharge the part of outstanding liability and said
both cheques in question returned unpaid by the banker of accused with remark
"insufficient fund" and " Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide cheque return memo Ex.
CW1/3 dt. 09.11.2006 and Ex. CW1/4 dt. 05.12.2006 respectively. Thereafter, the
complainant had got a legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 dt. 07.12.2006 sent to accused
through his counsel and accused failed to pay the demanded amount within stipulated
time after receiving said demand notice. Being aggrieved from the said conduct of
accused, the complainant has filed the present written complaint case u/s 138 r/w 142 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short NI Act) on 16.01.2007.
2. On the other hand, accused No. 2 Vikram Sachdeva, who is also representing
accused company admitted that he had signed cheques in question and also filled the
name of payee. He further stated that the cheques in question had been given to the
husband of complainant and same were given as security for supply fabrics. Accused
Vikram Sachdeva also admitted that he was director of accused no1 since it's inception
and till 2010. He also admitted that he and husband of Complainant had dealings in
fabrics for 1520 years. Other accused Vikas Sachdeva stated that he neither singed the
cheques in question nor did they belong to him. He further stated that he had no relation
with accused company. (see the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C.). Accused persons
did not lead any defence evidence despite of opportunity afforded to them for the same.
3. Complainant Sh. Kajal Aggarwal (CW1) examined as sole witness for proving
Page No. 2 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
3
her case. During crossexamination, CW1 stated that she was sole proprietor of
complainant firm since 1995 and also admitted that cheques in question do not bear
signature of accused Vikas Sachdeva. She testified that she used to supply unstitched
clothes to accused usually on his telephonic order. It was suggested by the defence during
crossexamination of complainant that she was not proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udhyog
and stale cheques were lying with her husband, which had been misused and paras 2, 5
and 7 were incorporated in the complaint to fill the lacuna in the legal notice. However,
CW1 negated the aforesaid suggestions. The complainant filed income tax return(ITR)
Ex. CW1/XX for assessment year 200506 and ITR mark ''AA'' for assessment year
200708 for proving that she was proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udhyog.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that accused no. 2 had admitted that he
had signed and filled the name of name of firm of complainant on cheques in question.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant also submits the presumption of consideration in respect
of cheques in question against the accused would arose u/s 139 of NI Act and the accused
had not produced any evidence in rebuttal of the same. Ld. Counsel for the complainant
further stated that accused vikram Sachdeva, who is also representing accused company
admitted in his statement u/section 313 Cr.P.C dt. 10.05.11 that his company had received
legal demand notice and it had not replied to the same. Ld. Counsel for the complainant
contends that in para 4 of her affidavit, the complaint specifically mentioned the period of
ongoing transactions between parties and outstanding dues on part of the accused but the
accused did not denied the same specifically in her crossexamination. Ld. Counsel for
the complainant further contends that any other civil suit filed by other persons with
bonafide typographical mistake in the name of proprietor of firm namely M/s Lakshya
Udyog, who also happened to be the husband of the complainant has no relevancy in the
present case.
On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel submits that accused no. 3 Vikas
Sachdeva was not summoned by then Ld. MM in another case b/w accused and husband
of the complainant bearing CC No. 55649/16 vide order dt. 25.05.2007 related to supply
of fabrics and issuance of cheques thereto and same has not been challenged by the
complainant. Ld. Defence counsel also stated that the complainant did not prove that
Page No. 3 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
4
accused no. 3 namely Vikas Sachdeva was infact the director of M/s Crest Export Pvt.
Ltd. and no record from registrar of company filed by the complainant in that respect and
also his responsibility in day to day affair of accused company could not be established by
the complainant. He also submits that the complainant can not claim herself to be holder
in due course of cheques in question as he failed to prove on record that she was
proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udhoyag rather her husband namely Sh. Shyam Sunder
Aggarwal claimed himself to be proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udyog in his affidavit filed in
another recovery civil suit against same accused before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Ld.
Defence counsel contends that the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 is not legally tenable
because the same was sent to M/s Crest Export and not to accused company namely M/s
Crest Export Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant had failed to prove the due service of such
legal demand notice on accused company, who is the drawer of cheques in question. Ld.
Defence counsel further contended that said legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 would be at
best treated in respect of only one cheque in question bearing No. 600883 as another
cheque bearing No. 600882 had not been mentioned anywhere in the notice.
5. In T. Vasanthakumar vs. Vijayakumari (Crl. Appeal No. 728 of 2015), the
Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, while dealing with stale cheque and presumptions u/s
139 of NI Act, observed as under:
"We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The
complainant has alleged that the money (loan) was advanced to the defendant on 20052006 in relation to which the cheque was issued to him by the defendant on 1601 2007. The cheque was for Rs.5 lakhs only, bearing No.822408. It is of great significance that the cheque has not been disputed nor the signature of the defendant on it. There has been some controversy before us with respect to Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to whether complainant has to prove existence of a legally enforceable debt before the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act starts operating and burden shifts to the accused.
Page No. 4 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
5Section 139 reads as follows:
"139. Presumption in favour of the holder It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." This Court has held in its three judge bench judgment in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent complainant." Therefore, in the present case since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused respondent, the presumption under Section 139 would operate. Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. To this effect, the accused has come up with a story that the cheque was given to the complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan; the loan was repaid but the complainant did not return the security cheque. According to the accused, it was that very cheque used by the complainant to implicate the accused. However, it may be noted that the cheque was dishonoured because the payment was stopped and not for any other reason. This implies that the accused had knowledge of the cheque being presented to the bank, or else how would the accused have instructed her banker to stop the payment. Thus, the story brought out by the accused is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence".
6. Keeping in view of above mentioned settled legal proposition and peculiarity of Page No. 5 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
6hypertechnical offence u/s 138 of NI Act and legislative intent behind the same to curb the menace of dishonouring of cheques by unscrupulous drawer for smooth functioning of business activities, the court has to appreciate the material on the record. In instant case the accused no. 2 Vikas Sachdeva admits that cheques in question belongs to the bank account of accused company, of which, he was director since its inception till 2010 and he had also filled the name of payee / complainant as appearing on cheques in question. In these situation, presumption of legally enforceable consideration in favour of complainant arose against accused in view of section 118 & 139 of NI Act. Now, it is upto the accused to rebut said legal presumption either by leading reliable and cogent defence evidence or even by exposing material contradiction in the case of complainant by way of cross examination of complainant. In present case accused preferred not lead any defence evidence during trial. Accused opted such course of action during trial on his own peril as he was granted enough opportunity for leading defence evidence in the present case.
7. So far as relation between complainant Kajal Aggarwal and the payee of cheque namely M/s Lakshya Udyog is concerned, the complainant has claimed in his legal demand notice and complaint as well as in her testimony that she was proprietor of the payee firm and also filed ITR for year 20052006 & 20072008 Ex. CW1/XX and mark AA respectively showing her as proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udyog with address as X/3626, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Any typographical error as claimed by the Ld. counsel for the complainant in affidavit of the husband of the complainant namely Shyam Sunder Aggarwal in some other civil suit or even deliberate act of husband of complainant in claiming himself as proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udyog can not be allowed to overshadow the claim of the complainant, who is consistently claiming to be proprietor of M/s Lakshya Udyog as the claims and rights of the rival parties of this case require to be determined on the basis of material available on the record of this case without making any allowance to the bonafide mistake or deliberate faulty act of any third person for which he would be himself liable for the same. Further, proprietorship firm is not distinct legal entity separate from its proprietor.
Another technical point raised by the defence as to legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 addressed to M/s Crest Exports and not M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. should not be Page No. 6 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
7read against accused no. 1 & 2 and service of the same on accused persons had also not been proven by the complainant. Here, complainant had filed legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5, postal receipt Ex. CW1/6, UPC receipt Ex. CW1/7 regarding sending legal demand notice to the accused persons at C31, Sec59, Noida, U.P. Now, it is upto the accused to prove that there existed two separate entity namely M/s Crest Exports and M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. at same said given address because only in that situation, the legal notice could have been received by some person, other than the intended drawer / noticee, who is facing trial in the case. However, accused did not lead any such evidence on the record of the case showing said possibility. Here, there may be bonafide practice / habit on part of complainant to mention the name of buyer of his fabrics and drawer of cheques in question in short form like Creast or Crest or Crest Exports instead of full official name of accused organization i.e. M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, it is noticeable that accused Vikram Sachdeva representing the accused company, in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. dt. 10.05.2011 admitted that his company had received legal demand notice issued by the complainant and it had not replied to the same. Proviso (b) to section 138 of NI Act stipulates mandatory written demand notice by the payee / holder in due course of the cheque to the drawer of the dishonored cheque within 30 days of receipt of information qua dishonoring of the cheque. In present case, the accused company is the drawer of dishonored cheques in question which belongs to its bank account. Here, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. P. Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555 and relevant para of the same is reproduced as under:
17. "It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s 138 of NI Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made Page No. 7 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
8payment within 15 days of receipt of summons, therefore, complaint is liable to be rejected. Any person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G. C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium of avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act."
X X
18. "In the instant case, the averment made in the complaint in this regard is: Though the complainant issued lawyers notice intimating the dishonour of cheque and demanded payment on 04.08.2001, the same was returned on 10.08.2001 saying that the accused was out of station. True, there was no averment to the effect that the notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer of the cheque by registered post acknowledgement due. But the returned envelope was annexed to the complaint and it thus, formed a part of the complaint which showed that the notice was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address and was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was abroad. We are of the view that on facts in hand the requirements of Section 138 of the Act had been sufficiently complied with and the decision of the High Court does not call for interference".
In view of aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even the plea of non Page No. 8 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
9service of legal demand notice is also of no great legal importance for accused.
8. Ld. Defence counsel also contended that the complainant did not bring any supportive documents of alleged transaction between her and accused company. In view of section 118/139 of NI Act, it was upto the accused to prove that he had not given cheques in question to the complainant or he had no dealing with the complainant or some other company in the name of Crest or Crest Export existed, which has been supplied with fabrics by the complainant. Accused company did not reply to legal demand notice of the complainant wherein, it was claimed that accused company has been purchasing fabrics from complainant's firm and for discharging the part of outstanding liability dishonored cheque in question was issued. It is also noteworthy that accused Vikram Sachdeva had admitted business transaction between accused company and husband of complainant for 1520 years and he also stated that the cheques in question was given as security for supply of fabrics and also he did not claim that no fabrics were supplied in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. dt. 10.05.2011. Further, mere, bald denial of supply of fabrics by the complainant or mere taking defence of security cheque in his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C. can not be accepted as truthful and even same can not be read as part of evidence for rebuttal of presumption of U/s 139 of NI Act. Reference may be made in that respect to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172 (2010) DLT 561. It is also noticeable that accused did not explain satisfactorily as to why he had filled the name of payee i.e. the firm of the complainant on cheque in question if he had no transaction with the complainant or no fabrics was supplied by the complainant. Further, the complainant had acknowledged the previous huge payment of Rs. 8,20,000/ from the accused in her complaint which was not sought to be denied specifically by the accused. Even blank cheque could be legitimately filled by the holder of the same and same can be presented for encashment. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as Ravi Chopra vs State And Anr. dt. 13 March, 2008 observed as under: "18. Section 20 NI Act talks of "inchoate stamped instruments" and states that if a person signs and delivers a paper stamped in accordance with the law and "either wholly Page No. 9 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
10blank or have written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument" such person thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof "to make or complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp." Section 49 permits the holder of a negotiable instrument endorsed in blank to fill up the said instrument "by writing upon the endorsement, a direction to pay any other person as endorsee and to complete the endorsement into a blank cheque, it makes it clear that by doing that the holder does not thereby incurred the responsibility of an endorser." Likewise Section 86 states that where the holder acquiesces in a qualified acceptance, or one limited to part of the sum mentioned in the bill, or which substitutes a different place or time for payment, or which, where the drawees are not partners, is not signed by all the drawees, all previous parties whose consent has not been obtained to such acceptance would stand discharged as against the holder and those claiming under him, unless on notice given by the holder they assent to such acceptance. Section 125 NI Act permits the holder of an uncrossed cheque to cross it and that would not render the cheque invalid for the purposes of presentation for payment. These provisions indicate that under the scheme of the NI Act an incomplete cheque which is subsequently filled up as to the name, date and amount is not rendered void only because it was so done after the cheque was signed and delivered to the holder in due Page No. 10 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
11course".
9. Ld. Defence counsel forcefully argued that cheques in question are apparently stale cheques as they are of the period prior to year to 2000 as they are carrying figure "19" on every cheque which supports the claim of accused as to the cheques were lying as security with the complainant, which were subsequently misused by her. Here, Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that digit "19" is printed on cheque and digit "06" is written by the hand on both cheques in question as they were issued in year 2006 and year of issuance of cheque in question drawn on Union Bank of India could not be 1906 because the said bank came into existence only on 11.11.1919. In so far as defence plea of accused as to cheque in question being stale cheque lying with the complainant, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Vasanthakumar (Supra) apply squarely to said challenge posed by the accused and same is reproduced as under:
"Further, the High Court relied heavily on the printed date on the cheque. However, we are of the view that by itself, in absence of any other evidence, cannot be conclusive of the fact that the cheque was issued in 1999. The date of the cheque was as such 20/05/2006. The accused in her evidence brought out nothing to prove the debt of 1999 nor disprove the loan taken in 2006.
In light of the above reasoning, we find that the learned High Court was misplaced in putting the burden of proof on the complainant. As per Section 139, the burden of proof had shifted on the accused which the accused failed to discharge. Thus, we find merit in this appeal".
10. Another plea of accused was that he had given security cheques in question to the complainant for supply of fabrics. However, even security cheque becomes enforcible once liability become due and quantifiable at the time of dishonoring of cheque even if it was not so at the time of handing over post dated or blank cheque to the complainant. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Chandra Vs. Amit Singhal Crl. L.P. No. 706/2014 dt. 14.05.2015 observed as under:
" 43. The Court also held that the expression, 'consideration' Page No. 11 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.12
used in the Contract Act is a very wide term, and it is not restricted to monetary benefit. Consideration does not necessarily mean money in return of money, or money in lieu of goods, or services. Any benefit or detriment of some value can be a consideration. The Court held that the complainant and the other owners of the property blocked their asset till the period of completion of the construction as per the collaboration agreement. The same was the consideration within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act. Thus, the reciprocal obligations of the builder, namely to create a security deposit was also a consideration for the contract. Consequently, the court dismissed the quashing petition.
44. In Sai Auto Agencies through its partner Dnyandeo Ramdas Rane v. Sheikh Yusuf Sheikh Umar, 2011 (1) Crimes 180, the defence of the respondent/accused was that, in relation to purchase of a tractor and equipments from the appellant, five blank cheques were given only as security. The respondent claimed that the complainant had already received the entire purchase consideration, and that the cheque in question was without consideration. The Court rejected the defence of the accused that the entire consideration stood paid to the appellant supplier. Relying upon Beena Shabeer (supra), the High Court observed:
"7. ... ... ... Necessarily, the cheque given as a security, if bounced, shall be the subjectmatter of a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. So, the contention of the accused that cheque (exhibit 28) was given only as a security will not enable him to escape from the clutches of law".
(emphasis supplied)
45. The High Court further held as follows:
"9. Even if blank cheque has been given towards liability or Page No. 12 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.13
even as security, when the liability is assessed and quantified, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid the criminal liability arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act".
Thus, the myth that the dishonour of a cheque given as a security, cannot be the subject matter of a compliant under Section 138 NI Act was busted in this decision as well".
11. This court does find forceful merit in the contention of Ld. Defence counsel as to legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 can not be basis for prosecution u/s 138 of NI Act qua one dishonored cheque Ex. CW1/1 as it does not mention the said cheque Ex. CW1/1 bearing No. 600882. Careful scanning of said legal demand notice shows that the complainant neither mentioned the issuance or dishonoring of cheque Ex. CW1/1 no had she made any demand from the noticee / accused for payment of the amount of the said cheque as it is confined to another cheque in question bearing No. 600883 Ex. CW1/2 for sum of Rs. 7,13,461/ only. The offence u/s 138 of NI Act has to construe strictly being penal provision and for attracting the wrath of section 138 of NI Act, the complainant has to send mandatory statutory legal demand notice to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days from knowing about its dishonoring. For sake of convenience, section 138 of NI Act is hereby reproduced as under: "
[138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. --Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be Page No. 13 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.14
extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.]"
In view of noncompliance of statutory mandate regarding sending legal demand notice by the complainant in respect of one dishonored cheque in question Ex. CW1/1 bearing No. 600882 for sum of Rs. 7,17,461/, the same can not be basis for prosecution u/s 138 of NI Act against any accused in the present case.
12. Having noted the relevant testimony of the examined witness and the material available on the record and also considering the rival submissions of both side, this court is of considered view that accused has failed to rebut the legal presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability arose in favour of holder of cheque i.e. complainant of the case u/s 118/139 of NI Act. Accordingly, accused no. 1 Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. And accused No. 2 Vikram Sachdeva are hereby convicted for the offence u/s 138 r/w 141 of NI Act for dishonoring of cheque Ex. CW1/2 Page No. 14 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
15bearing No. 600883 in present case. The said convict persons be heard on point of sentence separately. However, in view of order of Ld. Predecessor dt. 25.05.2007 wherein accused no. 3 Vikas Sachdeva was not summoned for want of connecting evidence for his liability u/s 138 of NI Act in connected case bearing CC No. 55649/16 between the same parties in respect of related transaction of supply of fabrics by the complainant to the accused and issuance of various cheques including cheques in question of present case, which were neither signed by accused no. 3 nor had complainant led any evidence for proving that he was director of accused company and related to the transaction in question, he is, therefore, acquitted in the present case.
RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH
KUMAR RAMPURI
KUMAR Location: Karkardooma
Courts, East District, Delhi
Date: 2018.08.21 17:04:21
RAMPURI +0530
Announced in the open court (RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURI)
on 21 August, 2018.
th
MM/KKD/Delhi
This judgment contains 15 signed pages.
Page No. 15 of 15 Ms. Kajal Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.