Delhi District Court
M.M. Associates vs . S.C. Arora C.A. No. 48/2011 on 4 January, 2013
1
M.M. Associates Vs. S.C. Arora C.A. No. 48/2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ - 05 : SOUTH - EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 48/2011
1 M. M. Associates (P) Ltd.,
H713714, Industrial Area PhaseII,
Bhivandi, Rajasthan
Also at :
R/o H. No. 567, Forest Lane,
Sanik Farms, New Delhi
2 Shri Nitin Sethi,
Director of M.M. Associates (P) Ltd.,
H713714, Industrial Area PhaseII,
Bhiwadi (Rajasthan)
... Appellants
Versus
Sh. S.C. Arora,
Proprietor of M/s Subash Arora and Company,
B105, Okhla, PhaseI,
New Delhi.
... Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.03.2011
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 20.12.2012
DATE OF ORDER: 04.01.2013
O R D E R
The present criminal appeal U/s 374 Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of the appellant against the impugned judgment / order dated 26.02.2011 passed 2 M.M. Associates Vs. S.C. Arora C.A. No. 48/2011 by Sh. Arvind Bansal, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in case titled S.C. Arora Vs. M.M. Associates (P) Ltd. & Ors. U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2 Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent and trial Court record was summoned.
3 Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant / respondent claiming himself as the proprietor of the respondent company filed complaint against appellants alleging that the complainant on 20.05.2003, 21.05.2003, 23.05.2003, 25.05.2003 and 27.07.2003 disbursed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the appellants in installments of Rs. 20,000/ each and also claimed that he obtained signatures of the appellant on vouchers. He further alleged that the appellants for repayment of the same issued five cheques of Rs. 20,000/ each dated 20.06.2003, 21.06.2003, 23.06.2003, 25.06.2003 and 27.06.2003. He further alleged that the appellants on 02.05.2003 issued a cheque of Rs. 24,800/ in favour of complainant as interest for one month on the above said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/. The appellants denied that issuance of the said cheque towards discharge of any loan liability and also denied that disbursement of the alleged loan and contended that as the complainant and appellants were in good relation and planning to run a prospective business and for that prospective business the said cheques were given as a security and the same were misused by the respondent. That after recording the evidence and hearing arguments Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 3 M.M. Associates Vs. S.C. Arora C.A. No. 48/2011 sentence.
4 I have heard in details the rival contentions of parties and carefullly perused the material before me.
5 The order passed by Ld. Trial Court is correct and based on documents and material evidence produced and proved on record. That Ld. Trial Court has rightly stated in the order that the cheques were issued by the appellant and amount mentioned on the cheques are correct in the cheques. That Ld. Trial Court came to conclusion after appreciation of evidence that cash vouchers duly signed by the appellant and dated in the same manner as that of loan advanced and appellant could not shake the genuineness of these documents. That Ld. Trial Court after considering and appreciating the facts, documents, evidence and settled propositions of law, rightly decided that cash vouchers were executed by the appellant and appellant has not denied signing vouchers. Despite leading evidence in defence the appellant could not rebut the presumption of law. That the cheques were issued to discharge the legal liability and that the cheque of Rs. 24,800/ was given by the appellant in advance for interest in discharge of legal debt and not for advance for security for any prospective business as alleged by the appellant in his appeal. That Ld. Trial Court has examined and considered all the depositions, documents and arguments to decide the case as per law.
6 It is found that the order of the Ld. Trial Court is well reasoned and based on thorough discussion. There is no ambiguity in the provisions of law or 4 M.M. Associates Vs. S.C. Arora C.A. No. 48/2011 its application by Ld. Trial Court. I find no merits in the appeal and impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2011 passed by Sh. Arvind Bansal, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in case titled S.C. Arora Vs. M.M. Associates (P) Ltd. & Ors. U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which does not require any interference and the same is confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
7 Appellant has made payment of the compensation amount of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs to the complainant as per the orders of Ld. Trial Court dated 26.02.2011, in the Court itself.
8 Copy of the order be supplied to the accused / appellant free of costs.
9 Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of the order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court nd on the 4 day of January, 2013 (RAJ RANI MITTRA) Addl. Sessions Judge05/SE Saket Courts, New Delhi.