Delhi District Court
Himanshu vs Swatanter Devi on 29 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS AMBIKA SINGH, ASJ-02/ WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 101/2023
CNR No. DLWT010027592023
HIMANSHU
S/o Sh. Satvir Singh
R/o D-190-191, J.J. Colony,
Camp No. 2, Nangloi, New Delhi
.....Appellant
Vs.
SWATANTER DEVI
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dabas
R/o House no. 122B, Ext. 1B, Nangloi
New Delhi.
....Respondent
Date of institution of the cases : 27.03.2023
Date when the cases reserved for order : 29.11.2024
Date of announcement of order : 29.11.2024
J U D G M E N T:
1. The criminal appeal under Section 374 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (In short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against judgment dated 24.01.2023 and order on sentence dated 24.02.2023 in CC No. 4688/2017 titled as 'Himanshu Vs. Swatanter Devi' under Section 138 of 'The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881' (in short 'NI Act') whereby Ld. MM (NI Act), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in short 'the trial Court') convicted the appellant for offence under Section 138 NI CA 101/2023 Page No. 1 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and default of payment of the same, further simple imprisonment for two months.
2. It is briefly stated that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') instituted a complaint case under Section 138 NI Act on the averments that the respondent/complainant and appellant/accused are known to each other for a long time and appellant/accused approached the complainant/respondent in the month of April 2016 for a friendly loan of Rs. 400,000/- for some personal needs and the complainant/respondent gave the accused/appellant of friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in last week of April, 2016 and the accused/appellant assured the complainant/respondent to repay the said loan within a period of six months. The accused/appellant issued cheque bearing no. 242723 dated 17.03.2017 for Rs. 3,00,000/-, which is Ex. CWI/1, drawn on Canara Bank, Nangloi Branch, New, Delhi, in favour of the complainant/respondent in discharge of legal debt/liability towards the complainant/respondent. On presentation by the complainant/respondent with its banker, the said cheque was dishonoured with remarks "Funds insufficient" as reflected vide returning memos dated 29.03.2017 which is Ex. CW1/2 and 10.05.2017 which is Ex. CW1/3. Thereafter, legal demand notice Ex. CW1/4 dated 06.06.2017 was served upon the accused/appellant calling him to pay the cheque amount but despite the service of the legal notice, the accused/appellant has not paid the cheque amount within the stipulated period of 15 days as per NI Act. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent filed CA 101/2023 Page No. 2 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi a complaint under Section 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act after the accused/appellant failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice.
3. While assailing the impugned orders dated 24.01.2023 and order on sentence dated 24.02.2023, the grounds taken by Ld. Counsel for the appellant are that, firstly, Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has not received any friendly loan from the complainant as alleged in the complaint and the appellant has also not issued the cheques in question to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint Secondly, Ld. Trail court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the appellate issued the said cheque to the complainant husband Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dabas as a security check in fact about two years before near Diwali the appellant wanted to start a "parchoon" shop, therefore, appellant asked rupees 3,50,000 from Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dabas i.e. the husband of the complainant. The appellant further says that the husband of the complainant asked him to bring one identity proof, one photo, one electricity bill, and one cheque as the husband of the complainant promised to pay the said amount within 15 days, after the lapse of 30 days the husband of the complainant paid him only Rupees 40,000/- in cash and for remaining amounts the husband of the complainant assure that it would be transfer in his account but it was never transferred. Thirdly, Ld. Trail court has not appreciated the facts that the husband of the complainant presented the said security cheque in thrice after filing in the name of complainant, even that the appellant visited the house of CA 101/2023 Page No. 3 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi the husband of the complainant to clarify the same, then the husband if the complainant took fight with him and then the appellant came back to his home. Fourthly, Ld. Trail Court has completely known the facts that the appellant had not borrowed the amount from the complainant alleged by her. Hence the appellant is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Fifthly, in case the sentence passed against the appellant is very severe and harsh. The appellant is a married man having two minor children, with the responsibility of his family and the impugned judgment is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and has been passed by the Id. Trial Court without due application of its judicious mind. Lastly, the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2023 and order on sentence dated 24.02.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court have been passed rashly and just in a mechanical manner without giving consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore liable to be set aside.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the accused approached the husband of the complainant/respondent for the loan but the husband of the complainant had advanced only Rs.40,000/- to the accused/appellant and never transferred the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- in the account of the accused/appellant as promised. He contended that the impugned judgment and sentence deserve to be set-aside.
5. Notice of the Revision petition was issued to the respondent on which the respondent entered his appearance. TCR CA 101/2023 Page No. 4 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi was also summoned.
6. Ld. Counsel for respondents has stated that he will straight away argue the matter and he stated that the present revision petition is not maintainable on the sole ground of jurisdiction and stated that the present appeal shall be dismissed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT:
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant/respondent contended that the Ld. Trial Court considered the evidence minutely and delivered a reasoned judgement. He contended that merely submitted that the cheque in question was a security cheques does not absolve the liability of accused/appellant in absence of any evidence is not a plausible defence. He contended that the appellant/accused failed to raise any probable defence to displace statutory presumption u/s 138 NI Act. He contended that the complainant has proved his financial capacity to advance loan amount to the appellant. He contended that there is no manifest error of law or procedure or perversity in the impugned judgement.
8. The jurisdiction of the appellate court is co- extensive with that of the trial court in the matter of assessment, appraisal and appreciation of the evidence and also to determine the disputed issues. A court exercising appellate power must not only consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must CA 101/2023 Page No. 5 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny. In Surinder Mohan Katwal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 15 SCC 349, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"14.....The powers of the appellate court under Section 386 CrPC are the same as that of the trial court. It is true that the trial court being a primary court of facts, which has the advantage of seeing and observing the witnesses has to thoroughly analyse the evidence and record its findings. In an appeal from a conviction, it is for the appellate court to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially established and record its own findings to confirm the conviction....."
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
(a) Whether the appellant had drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of an amount of Rs. 27,000/- in favour of the complainant?
9. On 09.10.2018, the notice was framed in which the appellant has stated in his plea of defence that he wanted to start a purchase shop, therefore, he asked Rs.3,50,000/- from Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dabas i.e. the husband of the complainant/ respondent and then he asked the appellant to bring one identity proof, one photo and one electricity bill and one cheque as security and promised to pay the said amount within 15 days. However, he paid only Rs.40,000/- to appellant in cash and for remaining amount, he assured that it would be transferred in his amount but it was never transferred. He further stated that he has not borrowed the amount from the complainant/respondent as alleged by the complainant/respondent. He has specifically answered that the cheque in question bears his signature.
CA 101/2023 Page No. 6 of 19Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi However, he has stated that other particulars except the date on the direction of the complainant/respondent have been filed by him. Similarly, in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC r/w sec 289 Cr. PC, he has again stated that he has given the cheque as security and bears his signature and he has filled up the other particulars except the date. Thus, it is proved that the appellant has drawn the said on an account maintained by him.
(b) Whether statutory presumption under Section 118 (a) and 139 NI Act that the said cheque was drawn for consideration and the complainant received the said cheque for discharge of any debt or other liability can be raised?
11. In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that presumption under Section 139 NI Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact. It is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case where factual basis for raising of presumption is established.; There is no discretion with the court but to draw the statutory presumption.
12. In Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India interepreted Section 139 NI Act as under:
"27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been inclused in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of chequs, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undeu delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be CA 101/2023 Page No. 7 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bounding of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and intrepretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof."
13. In Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in a trial under Section 138 NI Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Section 118 and 139 NI Act help him shift burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability.
14. In Rohit Bhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Another, (2019) 18 SCC 106, the accused could not deny his signatures on the cheques and that the said cheques were presented to the bank within the period of their validity and returned unpaid for the reason of either the balance being insufficient or the account being closed. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"15.......Therefore, it is required to be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e. the complainant received the same in discharge of CA 101/2023 Page No. 8 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi an existing debt. The onus, therefore, shifts on the appellant- accused to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption."
15. In Kalamani Tex and Another Vs. P. Balasubramanina, (2021) 5 SCC 283, Hon'ble Supremene Court of India held that the statue mandates that once the signature of an accused on cheque is established, then these "reverse onus" clause become operative and the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him.
16. The appellant/accused admitted his signature and account number maintained by him with respect to cheque in questioned. As already noted, it is proved that the said cheque was signed by the appellant/accused. Therefore, statutory presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 NI Act that the said cheque was drawn for consideration and the complainant received it in discharge of an existing debt or other liability are drawn against the appellant.
(c)Whether the trial Court rightly presumed existence of legal liability against the appellant?
17. Ld. counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court committed a patent error of law in presuming existence of legally enforceable liability of the appellant towards the complainant.
18. In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential burden on the appellant of proving that the cheque was not received by the Bank towards CA 101/2023 Page No. 9 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi the discharge of any liability.
19. In Bhupesh Rathod vs. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1105/2021 decided on 10.11.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the words of Section 139 NI Act are quite clear that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of the 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.
20. In Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat may not be correct.
21. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in presuming existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability against the appellant.
(d) Whether the complainant was required to prove existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability against the appellant?
22. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that he has not borrowed the loan amount from the complainant/respondent as alleged by the complainant/respondent.
CA 101/2023 Page No. 10 of 19Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi
23. In Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the loan was not advanced through banking mode or there was no receipt regarding the said loan would not make any difference and the finding of the High Court that the burden was on the appellant to prove that the had advanced the loan and the blank signed cheque was given to him in repayment of the same was patently erroneous. The finding of the High Court that the case of the appellant was highly doubtful was set-aside as under:
"37. The fact that the appellant complainant might have been an Income tax Practitioner conversant with knowledge of law does not make any difference to the law relating to the dishonour of a cheque. The fact that the loan may not have been advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt might not have been obtained would make no difference.....
39. In our considered opinion, the High Court patently erred in holding that the burden was on the appellant complainant to prove that he had advanced the loan and the blank signed cheque was given to him in repayment of the same. The finding of the High Court that the case of the appellant complainant became highly doubtful or not beyond reasonable doubt is patently erroneous for the reasons discussed above."
24. In Rohit Bhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Another (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"20.....Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not.....
22. The result of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs is that the major considerations on which the trial court chose to proceed clearly show its fundamental error of approach where, even after drawing the presumption, it had proceeded as if the complainant was to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt....."CA 101/2023 Page No. 11 of 19
Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi
25. In Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P. Balasubramanian (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"14. Once the 2nd appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the deed,the trial court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial court fell in error when it called upon the respondent complainant to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of law."
26. The complainant is not required to prove existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability as if, the complainant is to prove a debt before a civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount.
27. A dishonour of the cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when it was presented, it was not honoured. After drawing presumption under Section 118 (a) and 139 NI Act, the onus is shifted to the accused and unless the accused discharges the onus by bringing on record such evidence demonstrating a probable defence, the complainant cannot be called upon to show existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
(e) What is the manner and standard of proof for dislodging presumption under Section 118 (a) and 139 NI Act?
CA 101/2023 Page No. 12 of 19Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi
28. As regards standard of proof for displacing presumption under Section 118 (a) and 139 NI Act, it is settled that the defence has to establish its case on the principle of preponderance of probability.
29. In Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that standard of proof for rebutting presumption under Section 139 NI Act is preponderance of probabilities and for that matter, the accused can rely on the material submitted by the complainant, as under:
"28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities".
Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his / her own.
30. In Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose. It was held in para 20: (Kumar Exports case, SCC p. 520) as under;-
"20..... The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or CA 101/2023 Page No. 13 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non- existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist....."
31. Once the signature of the appellant on the said cheque are established, then "reverse onus" clauses become operative. The obligation to discharge the presumption is shifted upon the appellant/accused.
32. The presumptions raised under Section 118 (a) and 139 NI Act are rebuttable in nature. The appellant is required to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for displacing the presumption is preponderance of probability and not mere possibility. The appellant can lead evidence or rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant to show non-existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability or want of consideration.
(f) Whether the appellant is able to raise a probable defence?
33. Perusal of the pleadings shows that appellant/ accused had taken the stand that he has not taken the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant at any point of time rather he had approached the husband of the complainant for the loan but the husband of the complainant gave him Rs.40,000/- and CA 101/2023 Page No. 14 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi assured to transfer of Rs.2,60,000/- which was never transferred by him. Further, the cheque in question was security cheque. At the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr. PC as well as at the time of recording of statement u/s 313 Cr. PC, accused admitted the taking of loan of Rs.40,000/- and nowhere stated that he had returned the said amount to the complainant or her husband. No defence evidence has been led by the accused. Moreover, the amount of Rs,3,00,000/- is not a such a huge amount which would not have been arranged by the complainant. Moreso, when the accused has failed to bring on record any witness or any documents to support the claim made by him.
34. After carefully scrutinizing the testimony of complainant evidence and documents on records, it is crystal clear that the defence taken by accused is a sham one. The accused has taken the stand that he had approached the husband of the complainant for loan but the husband of the complainant gave him Rs.40,000/- and assured to transfer of Rs.2,60,000/- which was never transferred. There is no proof of the same. The accused has not brought any evidence from his side to prove that he was never given the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused is totally false. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that accused did not place any kind of evidence on record to prove that accused has not taken the loan amount. It clearly shows that entire defence taken by the accused is sham and he just created a false story to escape from his liability. The accused himself admitted his signature on the cheque and account number.
CA 101/2023 Page No. 15 of 19Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi
35. Further, as regards contention that the said cheque was a security cheque and it was issued without consideration, it can be stated that the complainant, in his examination-in-chief Ex.CW1/A, categorically stated that the appellant had issued the said cheque towards repayment of the loan advanced to him.
36. Further, it is well settled law that a security cheque issued for discharge of the present liability as security would not absolve the accused from penal consequences under Section 138 NI Act.
37. In Sripati Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., Crl. Appeal Nos. 1269-1270 of 2021 decided on 28.10.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"16.....If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time-frame and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow."
38. The complainant presented the said cheque dated 17.03.2017 for encashment within its period of validity. The said cheque was returned unpaid by the banker of the appellant with the endorsement "fund insufficient" vide bank memo dated 29.03.2017. The complainant issued demand notice dated 06.06.2017 within the prescribed period. The appellant stated in CA 101/2023 Page No. 16 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi his notice u/s 251 Cr. PC, he has not received any legal demand notice. The complaint was within limitation. The complaint established all pre-requisites as required under Section 138 NI Act.
39. The appellant was rightly convicted for committing offence under Section 138 NI Act.
40. There is no manifest error of law or procedure or perversity in the impugned judgment.
41. On the aspect of sentence, it may be noted that the cheque was returned for the first time unpaid on 29.03.2017 and the complaint was instituted on 27.07.2017.
42. In Bhupesh Rathod (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the respondent should be sentenced with imprisonment for a term of one year and with fine twice the amount of the cheque as under:
"29.....The complaint was instituted in July, 2006. Fifteen (15) years have elapsed since then. The punishment prescribed for such an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. We are of the view that in the given scenario the respondent should be sentenced with imprisonment for a term of one year and with fine twice the amount of the cheque, i.e. Rs. 3,20,000/-."
43. In Kalamani Tex vs. P. Balasubramanian (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"19. As regards the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the CA 101/2023 Page No. 17 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi settled principles that the object of Chapter XVII of NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realization of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest @ 9% p.a."
44. In the present case, the cheque amount is Rs. 3,00,000/-. The complaint case was instituted on 27.03.2023. The Trial Court is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and default of payment of the same, further simple imprisonment for two months.
45. The Trial Court has taken lenient view in imposition of compensation. There is no reason to interfere in the quantum of compensation.
46. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging conviction for commission of offence under Section 138 NI Act is modified. As per the order on sentence dated 24.02.2023, accused is sentenced for simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and default of payment of the same, further simple imprisonment for two months. However, keeping in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it to modify the order on sentence. The appellant herein is sentence simple imprisonment for one month. However, there is no change any other conditions of sentence i.e. fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and in CA 101/2023 Page No. 18 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi default of payment of the same, SI for two months. Appellant is directed to pay fine amount before the Ld. Trial Court itself after adjusting amount already paid, if any. Appellant is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court to undergo the said punishment within 10 days from today.
48. A copy of the judgment along-with trial Court record be sent to the Trial Court. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by AMBIKA AMBIKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2024.12.03 15:12:50 +0530 Announced in the open court (Ambika Singh) on 29.11.2024 ASJ-02/THC, West/Delhi 29.11.2024 CA 101/2023 Page No. 19 of 19 Himanshu Vs. Swantanter Devi