Delhi District Court
In Re: Vinod Kumar Sharma vs . Pawan Kumar on 17 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT,
MM, NI ACT-06, SOUTH WEST, DWARKA, DELHI
IN RE: VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS. PAWAN KUMAR
CC No. 36627/2019
CNR No. DLSW02-021448-2019
Vinod Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Sharma
R/o WZ-1391/7 Nangal Raya
New Delhi-46 ........Complainant
Versus
Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Rati Ram
R/o RZ-104, Tara Nagar
Palam Village
New Delhi-46 .........Accused
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.12.2013
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 138 N I Act
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17.08.2023
DECISION : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The instant matter has originated out of a complaint under section 200 CrPC read with Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N I Act'), filed by the complainant against the accused alleging that cheque bearing no. 318751 dated 11.02.2023, amount 2,90,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and ninety thousand only/-) drawn on SBI, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, in discharge of a legal debt or other liability, has been dishonoured and the accused has not paid the said amount even after receiving the prescribed legal demand notice. By virtue of this judgment, the present complaint is being disposed of.
Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 1 of 15CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment
Brief Facts of the case
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he shared friendly relations with the accused since a long time and on 07.08.2012 (morning), the accused approached him for friendly loan of Rs. 2,90,000/-, at his residence, at Nangal Raya. The complainant called the accused on the same day (evening), to his work place at Najafgarh and in the presence of his son- Sh. Siddharth Sharma, advanced the abovementioned amount to the accused. At the time of taking the loan, the accused issued a post date cheque / cheque in question (the details of which are mentioned hereinabove in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment), in favour of the complainant, in order to discharge his liability. When the complainant presented the cheque in question for encashment, after its due date, on 16.02.2013, the cheque in question got dishonored with the reason 'kindly contact the drawer/ drawee bank'. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 04.03.2013, to the accused, via registered AD, but the accused did not pay the amount mentioned on the cheque in question, despite receiving the same. Being aggrieved with the abovestated facts, the complainant instituted the present case on 05.04.2013.
3. Pursuant to the institution of the present complaint, summons were issued against the accused and upon the appearance of the accused, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against him vide order dated 02.05.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the defence recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. on the same date, the accused stated the cheque in question bears his signatures but other particulars have not been filled by him. He added that the cheuqe in question was handed over by him to the complainant, in the year 2002, for securing a loan of Rs. 1 lakh, as his father was ill. He also handed over one blank cheque to the complainant in the year 2006, which is still in the custody of the complainant. The complainant also took his property documents (A-8, Tara Nagar, Kakrola, New Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 2 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment Delhi), which are still in his (complainant's) possession. He demanded the cheque in question and his property documents from the complainant, as the complainant failed to arrange a bank loan, for him, but the complainant sought some time on one pretext or the other. He further added that he did not receive the legal demand notice and the address mentioned on the same, is not his correct address.
4. Thereafter, the matter was listed for complainant's evidence and in support of his case, the complainant - Vinod Kumar Sharma (CW-1) examined himself and his son - Sidharth Kumar Sharma (CW-2) and relied on the following documents:
(i) Original cheque as Ex.CW-1/A;
(ii) Return memo as Ex.CW1/B;
(iii) Legal notice as Ex.CW1/C;
(iv) Postal receipt as Ex.CW1/D;
(v) Courier receipt as Ex.CW1/E;
(vi) Tracking Reports as Ex.CW1/F and Ex.CW1/G;
(vii) Evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.CW1/H;
(viii) ITR of the complainant for the assessment year 2012-13 as Ex. CW1/X.
5. In his statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused stated that the entire case of the complainant is false and in the year 2001, he had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant, which he had returned to him, in four months, by paying Rs 200/- everyday. Thereafter, in the year 2006, he took another loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant which he repaid by paying Rs. 300/- everyday, for a period of 3 months. In 2007, he again required Rs. 1 lakh, for the treatment of his ailing father and the complainant assured to help him by availing loan from somewhere. For the purpose of procuring the loan, the complainant took possession of his property documents and the cheque in question, in a blank signed condition. The complainant did not give him even a single penny and in the meanwhile, his father also expired. When he approached the complainant for retuning his property documents and the cheque in Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 3 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment question, the complainant did not return the same on one pretext or the other. He further added that he never approached the complainant, for loan, in the year 2012 and he did not receive the legal demand notice.
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for defence evidence. The accused presented himself (Pawan Kumar Sharma/ DW-1) and Mahesh (DW-
2) as witnesses, in order to prove his defence.
7. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, it was argued by Sh. Pradeep Murria, Ld. Counsel for the complainant that in view of the fact that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, the presumptions under 118(a)/139 N I Act are attracted and the case is fit for conviction. He has stated that accused has failed miserably in proving his defence by taking contradictory stances at various stages of trial. He further stated that the complainant was financially capable to advance the loan amount and the mere fact that he has advanced loans to other people previously, does not disprove his entire case. It has thus been prayed that the accused be convicted in the present matter.
8. Per contra, Sh. Vicky Daler, the Ld. counsel for the accused has stated that the complainant is an illegal money lender who has a history of filing false cases against innocent borrowers. The cheque in question was handed over by the accused to the complainant way back in the year 2001/2006 and the same has been misused by the complainant. He has further stated that since the complainant has admittedly advanced loan during the same period, to other borrowers, his financial capacity/ sources of funds, are highly doubtful. It has thus been prayed that the accused be acquitted in the present matter.
Findings of the Court-
Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 4 of 15CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment
9. Before delving into the facts of the case, it is apposite to bear in mind the law with respect to section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act. In order to prove his case under section 138 N I Act, the complainant must prove the following facts-
i) The accused issued a cheque on a bank account maintained by him;
ii) The said cheque must have been issued, wholly or partly, in discharge of a 'legal debt or other liability' ;
iii) The said cheque was presented before the bank within 3 months from the date of issuance and was dishonoured;
iv) The payee issued a legal demand notice, within 30 days of receipt of information of dishonour of the cheque;
v) The drawer failed to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the said legal demand notice.
10. Further, the NI Act raises two important legal presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque as soon as the execution of cheque is proved. As per Section 118(a), NI Act, it shall be presumed that every negotiable instrument was 'made, accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed for consideration, unless the contrary is proved'. Furthermore, as per section 139, NI Act, it shall be presumed that 'the holder of cheque, received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved.'
11. The principles with respect to above mentioned presumptions, have been succinctly laid down in Para 25 of the judgment by Hon'ble apex court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, which lays down as under-
" 25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 5 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden."
12. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that in the present matter the cheque in question (Ex.CW1/A) was issued on 11.02.2013. The said cheque was presented before the bank within the prescribed time and was dishonored vide return memo (Ex.CW1/B) dated 18.02.2013 with the reason 'Contact the drawer/drawee bank'. Thereafter, a legal notice (Ex.CW1/C) was sent by the complainant on 04.03.2013, which as per the tracking report was received by the accused on 13.03.2013. Thereafter, the present matter was instituted by the complainant on 05.04.2013.
13. In the present matter, the case of the complainant is that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of his legally recoverable liability. During the course of the present trial, the accused admitted his signatures over the cheque in question and as laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in Basilingappa (supra), once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumptions that the cheque in question was executed in Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 6 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment discharge of a debt or other liability gets attracted by virtue of the mandate of section 139, N I Act and the onus to raise a probable defence shifts upon the accused. The defence taken by the accused in the present matter is mainly four fold: 1) The accused did not receive the legal demand notice and consequently no cause of action can be said to have arisen in the present matter and 2) The complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan in question and has failed to explain the sources of his funds; 3) The complainant is an illegal money lender who defrauds and harasses innocent borrowers and 4) The cheque in question was handed over by the accused to the complainant, in the year 2001/2006 and the same was subsequently misused by the complainant.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENCE THAT THE ACCUSED DID NOT RECEIVE THE LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY NO CAUSE OF ACTION CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN IN THE PRESENT MATTER
14. In the present matter, one of the defence taken by the accused is that he did not receive the legal demand notice sent by the complainant. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that as per the tracking report (Ex.CW1/G), the accused received the legal demand notice on 13.03.2013. Throughout the trial, the accused did not challenge the genuineness of the tracking report (Ex.CW1/G), by leading any positive evidence to this effect. Further, the complainant has remained unrebutted (during his cross examination) on the aspect of the correctness of the address of the accused mentioned over the legal demand notice and consequently, the accused has failed to establish that the legal demand notice was not served upon him by the complainant.
15. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that arguendo, if it is assumed that the accused did not receive the legal demand notice sent by the complainant, then also, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble apex court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 7 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment 555, the accused cannot be given any benefit of the same, as it has been categorically held in the said judgment, that an accused who has not received the legal demand notice cannot claim the benefit of the said defence as once summons are served upon him, it is the duty of such an accused to make the payment of the cheque in question within 15 days of receiving summons from the court and if this option is not availed by the accused, the benefit of the defence of non service of legal demand notice cannot be given to him. Evidently, in the present matter, after the summons were served upon the accused, he took no steps to repay the amount mentioned on the cheque in question. Consequently, in light of the above legal position and factual matrix, the accused has failed to prove that he did not receive the legal demand notice and even otherwise, as discussed hereinabove, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in CC Alavi Haji (Supra), no benefit of the present defence can be given to the accused.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENCE THAT THE COMPLAINANT LACKED THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE LOAN IN QUESTION AND HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF HIS FUNDS.
16. The law with respect to the question of financial incapacity/ non explanation of sources of funds, in cases pertaining to section 138 of the N I Act, has been succinctly dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions. The Hon'ble Apex court in Basalingappa(Supra), has held that - it is not imperative for the accused to step into the witness box to prove his defence regarding financial incapacity of the complainant and it is the duty of the complainant to prove his financial capacity, once the accused challenges the same. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recently held in P Rasiya v. Abdul Nazir 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1131 that the complainant is not bound to specifically state nature of transaction and sources of funds in his complaint. A conjoint reading Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 8 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment of the above judgments, makes it amply clear that in cases pertaining to section 138 of the N I Act, initially, the complainant is not expected to specify his sources of funds, in the complaint. However, when the financial capacity or the sources of his funds are challenged by the accused, during the course of trial, the complainant is under an obligation to explain his financial capacity and the sources of his funds.
17. In the present matter, the complainant (Vinod Kumar Sharma / CW-
1) was initially cross examined on 20.07.2019, wherein no questions were put to him qua his financial capacity. Thereafter, after an application u/s 311 of Cr.PC, was allowed in favour of the accused, the complainant was again cross examined (on 20.05.2023 ) on the aspect of his financial capacity, wherein the complainant produced his ITR for the assessment year 2012-13 (Ex.CW1/X, colly), as per which, the gross income of the complainant, in the relevant period was Rs. 5,36,125/- and after claiming deductions, the total income of the complainant stood at Rs. 4,57,956/-. On the said income of Rs. 4,57,956/-, the complainant paid a total tax of Rs. 34,359/- and thus, the amount of money that remained in the hands of the complainant was Rs.4,23,597/-.
18. Pertinently, at the stage of final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the accused produced copies of relevant documents of case bearing CC no. 4522/16, which was instituted by the complainant against one Ram Kirpal Tiwari, u/s 138 of the N I Act, qua a loan of Rs. 4,70,000/-, which was allegedly advanced on 27.08.2012. Upon the production of the said documents, the Ld. counsel for the complainant admitted the fact that the said are true and correct copies of the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant in the said case (bearing CC no. 4522/16). In view of the above, the short question that falls for the consideration of this court is whether the complainant has succeeded in explaining his financial capacity, Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 9 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment to advance the loan in question amounting to Rs. 2,90,000/-, to the accused in August, 2012.
19. As discussed hereinabove, as per the ITR of the complainant for the relevant period (assessment year 2012-13/ Ex.CW1/X-1), the total earnings of the complainant (after deducting his savings and taxes), during the relevant period, stood at Rs. 4,23,597/-. From the admissions of the complainant, it emerges that, it is his own case that in the year 2012, on 07.08.2012, he advanced a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the complainant and after a period of exactly 20 days, on 27.08.2012, he again advanced a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- to one Ram Kirpal Tiwari. Thus, if the version of the complainant is to be believed, he advanced a total sum of Rs. 7,60,000/-, in the year 2012, within a short span of 20 days, which in the opinion of the court is highly unbelievable and far fetched, as the net income of the complainant during the relevant year was merely Rs. 4,23,597/-. Admittedly, at the stage of cross examination, the complainant himself stated that the alleged loans were not shown by him in his ITR for the relevant period, which though not a determinative factor, is yet relevant to cast aspersions and raise doubts on the version of the complainant. Consequently, the accused has successfully assailed the financial capacity of the complainant, to advance the loan in question, during the relevant period.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENCE THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS AN ILLEGAL MONEY LENDER WHO DEFRAUDS AND HARASSES INNOCENT BORROWERS
20. In the instant matter, one of the primary defences that the accused has taken is that the complainant is an illegal money lender who habitually defrauds and harasses innocent borrowers. In order to prove the said defence, the Ld. counsel for the accused relied on the cross examination of the complainant - Vinod Kumar Sharma /CW-1 dated 01.11.2022, as per which, the complainant admitted that six cases out of the seven cases, mentioned in the ordersheets Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 10 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment (Ex.CW1/DX-1, colly), had been filed by him and out of the said six cases, four have been settled in mediation and one case abated due to the death of the accused. The Ld. counsel for the accused has also drawn the attention of the court to the admissions of the complainant dated 08.08.2023, wherein he admitted the correctness of the documents and the complaint filed in CC no. 4522/16 and argued that the modus operandi of the complainant in all his cases is similar, which clearly shows his malafides. On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the accused has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Guddo Devi @ Guddi Vs. Bhupender Kumar Crmn. Rev, Petition 1246/19 and Criminal misc. (bail) 2090 19, and submitted that the mere fact that the complainant had lent money to three or four persons, does not lead to an inference that the complainant was a money lender.
21. Upon a careful scrutiny of the record in light of the rival submissions of the parties, it emerges that the complainant has himself admitted on 01.01.2022 that he has filed six other cases pertaining to section 138 of the NI Act against several other people, and his cross examination further reveals that the said list of cases was not exhaustive as he categorically stated that in the year 2012/13, he may have advanced loan to other people, but he does not exactly remember the same. Thereafter, when the Ld. counsel for the accused produced the copies of complaint and the documents of CC No. 4522/16, the complainant admitted that the said case was filed by him and therefore, in total seven cases, apart from the present case, have been admitted to have been filed by the complainant.
22. Furthermore, a perusal of the complaint of the case bearing no. 4522/16, shows that the averments of the complainant in the said case and present case, are similar as in both the cases, it has been averred that the accused sought financial assistance on a particular day from the complainant and on the same day, the complainant advanced the loan amount to the accused (in both cases) in the Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 11 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment presence of his son. At this stage, it is axiomatic to state that a matter pertaining to section 138 of the N I Act is a 'Civil Sheep' in a 'Criminal Wolf's Clothing' (as laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mohan Raj Vs. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd. LL 2021 SC 120). In the present matter, the conduct of the complainant in instituting two similar case u/s 138 of the N I Act, that too for the recovery of loan amounts, allegedly advanced within a time gap of 20 days, on similar facts, coupled with the fact that the complainant has admitted to have instituted seven other cases (u/s 138 of the N I Act) apart from the present case, clearly show that he has not approached the court with clean hands and there is a very high probablity that the complainant is an illegal money lender.
23. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that this court is in humble agreement with the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Guddo Devi @ Guddi (Supra), as per which the mere fact that a person has lent money in three or more persons does not lead to an inference that a person is a money lender. However, in the considered opinion of this court, the said judgment cannot lend any support to the version of the complainant as in the present matter, he has admitted that he has instituted seven cases u/s 138 of the N I Act (as opposed to 3 or 4 cases) and the said list is not exhaustive. Moreover, the accused has admittedly filed two cases on similar facts, for the recovery of loans advanced allegedly between a time gap of 20 days, which exceed his yearly income by almost Rs. 3 lakhs, which clearly shows his malafide. The standard of proof as expected from an accused in cases u/s 138 of the N I Act, is preponderance of probabilities (reference - Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54) and in the present matter, the admissions of the complainant regarding filing several cases u/s 138 of the N I Act, in the past, are suggestive of the fact that there is a very possibility to believe that the complainant worked as a illegal money lender.
Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 12 of 15CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment
24. As regards the testimony of Mahesh/ DW-2 is concerned, the same does not appear to be trustworthy and reliable as the said witness has himself admitted that he is physically infirm (unable to speak and walk properly) right from his birth and ordinarily, no reasonable prudent man would hire such a person for collection of money, which requires lot of physical movements as well as normal communication skills. However, although the testimony of DW- 2/Mahesh, appears to be unreliable, as discussed hereinabove, by virtue of the other material on record, the accused has succeeded in suggesting a strong possibility that the complainant worked as an illegal money lender, as per the prescribed standards of 'preponderance of probabilities'.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENCE THAT THE CHEQUE IN QUESTION WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ACCUSED TO THE COMPLAINANT, IN THE YEAR 2001/2006 AND THE SAME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MISUSED BY THE COMPLAINANT.
25. One of the defences that the accused has taken in the present matter is that the cheque in question was handed over by him to the complainant in the year 2001/2006. In order to prove the said defence, the accused examined himself as a witness and categorically stated that he had taken loans from the complainant in the year 2001 and 2006 and on both the occasions, handed over a blank signed cheque to the complainant. The accused further stated that the said loans of the year 2001 and 2006, have already been repaid by him and the complainant has misused the cheque in question. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the accused has also argued that the cheque in question (Ex.CW1/A) is in itself very old and such cheques were issued by the banks, prior to the year 2005. On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused has given contradictory versions at the various stages of trial and the accused took no steps Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 13 of 15 CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment to summon the concerned bank witness in order to establish the exact period when the cheque in question was issued by the bank of the accused, to him.
26. Upon a careful scrutiny of the record in light of the present defence of the accused, it emerges that the accused has throughout the trial, stated that he had handed over two signed security cheques to the complainant - one in the year 2001/2002 and other in the year 2006, however, no credible independent evidence has been led by the accused to prove the said fact. In the considered opinion of this court, in order to prove this defence, it was expected of the accused to produce the concerned employees of his bank who could have clarified the exact period/year in which the cheque in question was issued by the bank to the accused and by not producing the said witness, the accused failed to prove his version by the best possible evidence. As discussed hereinabove, the testimony of Mahesh / DW- 2 does not appear to be genuine and reliable and consequently in the considered opinion of this court, there is no independent reliable evidence on record that goes on to prove that the cheque in question was handed over by the accused to the complainant, in the year 2001/2006.
27. Before parting with the judgment it is pertinent to note that during the course of final arguments, apart from the judgments discussed hereinabove, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following judgments:- M/s The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Vs. Abhishek Mittal CRL. A. No.294/11, Kalamani Tex Vs. T. Balasubramanian CRL. A. No. 123/21, Krishna P. Morajkar Vs. Joe Ferrao Laws (BOM) - 2013-7-85 and Lekh Raj Sharma Vs. Yash Pal Gupta CRL. L.P. 567/2014. This court humbly bows down to the law laid down in the abovementioned judgments and the said judgments have been duly considered by this court in appreciating the facts and evidences of the present matter.
Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 14 of 15CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment
CONCLUSION
28. Thus, on account of above appreciation of facts, evidences and materials on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to explain his financial capacity to advance the loan in question and there is enough material on record to suggest the possibility of the complainant being an illegal money lender. In the present matter, the accused has failed in proving one of his defence regarding the cheque being handed over by him to the complainant, way back in the year 2001/2006, but, he has successfully proved his other defences and consequently, he has successfully raised a probable defence as per the touchstone of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Consequently, the accused Pawan Kumar is acquitted under the accusation of committing the offence punishable u/s 138 N I Act.
29. This judgment contains 15 pages. This judgment has been pronounced in open court today and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
30. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of Digitally signed District Courts, Dwarka forthwith. SHASHANK by SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT Date: 2023.08.17 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT BHATT 12:55:51 +0530 TODAY I.E. ON 17th August 2023.
(Shashank Nandan Bhatt)
Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-06
South- West, Dwarka
17.08.2023
Vinod Kumar Sharma VS. Pawan Kumar Page 15 of 15
CC No. 36627/2019 Judgment