Delhi District Court
M/S Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pte. ... vs . M/S Misty Abacus Academy Pvt. Ltd. on 27 April, 2012
M/s Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pte. Ltd. Vs. M/s Misty Abacus Academy Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr.
C.C.No.5172/10
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Summons unserved with a report left the address.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant, however, submits that accused is appearing in the court of
Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Ld. ACMM, Delhi and the date therein is 09.05.2012.
At request of the ld. counsel, let summons be issued against the accused to be served in the
court of Ld. ACMM, Delhi after obtaining his permission.
Process Server Ajay Sharma is present. However, it appears that he is not required.
Ahlmad to explain how he has issued notice to Process Server.
List on 23.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Darrick Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Pavan Trading Co. & Anr.
C.C.No.5356/11
27.04.2012
Present: None.
Process not received back.
A Show Cause Notice be issued to the concerned SHO for 04.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.295/10
27.04.2012
Present: None.
NBW for 14.12.2011 unexecuted.
Fresh address of the accused has not been filed by the complainant which was required in
terms of order dated 24.12.2011.
Adjourned for appearance of complainant so that he can assist.
List on 17.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Dharmender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajeev Kumar @ Raja
C.C.No.6378/11
27.04.2012
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order.
Let the same be complied with for 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Deepak Electronics
C.C.No.1465/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Shiv Shakti Electronics and Anr.
C.C.No.2510/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
Summons unserved.
Summons be issued afresh after filing of fresh address of the accused.
List on 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Grover Electronics Place
C.C.No.2508/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
Summons unserved.
Summons be issued afresh after filing of fresh address of the accused.
List on 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Fena Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Patra
C.C.No.1120/10
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW unexecuted.
Let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused to be executable on or before
10.05.2012.
List on 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Goyal Enterprises Vs. M/s Anny Fabs & Anr.
C.C.No.572/10
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
As per Nazarat Branch they have not received any summons in the present case.
Ahlmad shall make his explanation.
In the meantime, summons be issued against the accused and be served by way of affixation
for 03.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Hari Nath Shrivastava Vs. Om Prakash Trehan
C.C.No.2913/10
27.04.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Counsel for the accused.
Bailable Warrant duly executed.
Parties submit that matter has been settled.
Separate statement of complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Matter be listed before Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Jagbir Singh Vs. Rajeev Kumar @ Raja
C.C.No.6376/11
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
There is no compliance of previous order.
Be complied with for 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Madan Lal Bairwa Vs. Rajeev Kumar @ Raja
C.C.No.6377/11
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
There is no compliance of previous order.
Be complied with for 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Jitender Kumar Vs. Ms. Neelam Prasad
C.C.No.4769/10
27.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
There is no compliance of previous order.
Be complied with for 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.1884/10 & 1885/10
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
These are two connected matters.
Ld. Counsel submits that the address of the accused is same as verified from TRI.
He filed a copy of letter in this respect.
Let summons be issued through the concerned SHO for 30.06.2012.
At request, date is changed to 07.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.71/10
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
He submits that the accused is very much residing at the given address. However, the record
does not inspire confidence in the submission made by the complainant.
Complainant is directed to file affidavit in this respect.
Only, thereafter, bailable warrant be issued for 29.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Prakash Book Depot Vs. Mukesh Mehta & Anr.
C.C.No.3851/10
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
NBW unexecuted and request for next has been made by the police officials.
NBW be issued afresh for 30.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Parbhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Orient Tradelink Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.5970/10
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel has filed new Vakalatnama.
Summons duly served.
Be awaited for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
At 03.00 p.m.
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
BW in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be issued for 30.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Prashar Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar
C.C.No.214/1/09
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
One opportunity for compliance of previous order.
List on 07.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Prabhjee Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh
C.C.No.432/10
27.04.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
NBW unexecuted.
A Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
It appears that report was directed to be called from the concerned SHO in respect of the
earlier Process. However, SHO has made a report in respect of the present NBW.
Let report be called in respect of earlier NBWs issued in this case.
List on 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.6208/11 & 6265/11
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
These are two matters.
As submitted by the Ahlmad process has not been received back.
A Show Cause Notice be issued to the concerned SHO who shall appear in person with an
explanation about execution or non execution of the warrant issued in this case.
Complainant has filed new address of the accused.
NBW be further issued afresh to be executable through the concerned SHO with the
assistance oif Kolkata police.
To be listed on 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.5354/11
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He submits that due to non availability of the address of the accused, he could not file the
necessary process fee. He submits that he is searching the address of the accused and the accused
is changing the address.
It appears that no one was appearing on behalf of the accused for several dates and on the
last date only one opportunity was given to the complainant to comply with the order dated
13.09.2007. For the complainant failed to comply with the order.
The case is very old.
State should not be burdened with such litigation where the complainant is not complying with
the orders. Complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Raj Kumar Vs. Vinod @ Vinod Pradhan
C.C.No.6187/11
27.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Bailable Warrant duly executed.
Be awaited for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
After lunch
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for accused on Memo of Appearance.
Bailable Warrant duly executed.
An exemption application has been filed on the ground that accused has gone to Punjab.
The application is completely frivolous and without any supporting proof. Dismissed.
Accused despite execution of bailable warrant chose not to appear in the court.
NBW be issued for 30.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.6189/11
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons still not received back.
Be awaited.
In the meantime, fresh summons be issued through all available modes.
Internet Generated Tracking Slip be also filed as the summons is also directed to be issued
by speed post.
List on 04.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.679/10
27.04.2012
Present: Employee of the complainant.
NBW unexecuted.
In view of the report Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
Notice to Surety also unserved.
It appears that Surety had filed copies of certain documents with the Surety Bond.
Let a Notice be issued afresh alongwith the copies of such documents indicated above.
List on 07.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Ravinder Upadhaya Vs. M/s Sanghavi Uniting Industries Ltd.
C.C.No.1998/10
27.04.2012
Present: None.
Ahlmad shall report about the compliance of last order.
Last order be also complied with within five days for 18.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Sadbhawana Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Ashoka Adsorbents Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.5687/11
27.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Summons unserved with a refusal.
A Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused specially in view of refusal to receive
the summons.
List on 31.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Gaurav Marketing
C.C.No.1464/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. Hitender Gupta
C.C.No.1466/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Satkar Melody
C.C.No.1431/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Saurabh Sales
C.C.No.1573/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Saurabh Sales
C.C.No.1410/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. Gorav Teleshop
C.C.No.1409/10
27.04.2012
Present: Mr. Sunny Bhandari, Employee of the complainant.
It appears that after repeated direction, order has not been complied with.
Process fee is also not on record.
Employee has no information about filing of any process fee.
Even no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant.
In such circumstances, only one opportunity is given to the parties with an adjournment cost
of Rs.1,000/- in each case to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days failing which opportunity shall
stand closed and the complaint shall be dismissed.
Ahlmad is directed to place the files on 11.05.2012 if the complainant does not furnish the
receipt of the cost and does not file necessary process fee.
Regular date is 06.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Shamsher Rana Vs. S.S. Kulkarni
C.C.No.1663/10
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
One Yasir Beg stating himself son of the friend of accused is present. Such appearance
cannot be accepted.
Neither the accused nor his ld. counsel is available.
The file has been received from the Ld. Sessions Judge. It appears that vide order dated
20.04.2012, Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi has dismissed the transfer petition preferred by
the accused.
It further appears that Ld. Revisional Court i.e. ASJ-02 (Central), Delhi vide his order dated
15.03.2012 has dismissed the revision petition preferred by the accused. The Ld. Revisional Court
while dismissing the revision petition has imposed a token cost of Rs.20,000/- on the accused to be
paid to the complainant before the trial by way of a Demand Draft within four weeks. However, till date
accused has not deposited the said amount.
As such the cost becomes recoverable as a fine and, therefore, the Warrant of Attachment
in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against the accused.
Let a Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused. SHO is directed to arrest
the accused with the help of Mumbai police in accordance with law.
It appears that on 15.03.2012, Notice to Surety was unserved. On that day the file was in the
Ld. Revisional Court.
The said unserved notice is showing the reason out of station. It appears that notice to surety
for 25.02.2012 was also unserved with a report Mumbai gaye hain.
Clearly the surety Ashish Kumar Kanojia was deliberately avoiding the notice.
It seems that Surety Ashish Kumar Kanojia does not want to justify his sufficient cause as
required U/s 446(1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, he is liable to pay the penalty.
It appears that surety had filed copies of three FDR totalling Rs.50,000/-. Let the amount of
these FDRs be attached to the concerned bank.
Branch Manager is further directed to release the amount in favour of the state and to deposit
the same in the court.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the earlier surety is present.
It appears that on 25.02.2012, FDR of the earlier surety i.e. Ms. Manjushree Kulkarni was
directed to be deposited with the Treasury for realization of the bond amount i.e. Rs.20,000/-
whereafter the balance amount was to be paid by the Surety.
Let the said order be complied with.
Considering the entire conduct of the accused, Processes to be issued at the earliest.
List on 15.05.2012.
At request of the ld. counsels, date is changed to 17.05.2012.
A copy of this order alongwith copies of FDRs be sent to the concerned branch of SBI, Spl.
P.B.B. New Delhi, Jawahar Vypar Bhawan, STC Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. Naresh Gaur
C.C.No.1743/10
27.04.2012
Present: None.
Process issued U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back.
Let this Process server be called.
A Notice to Surety be also issued for 07.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012
C.C.No.6568/12
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Notice issued to the Respondent unserved.
Ld. Counsel has filed fresh address.
Let Notice be again issued for 30.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Vishnu Bhagwan Goel Vs. Ms. Sarita Singh C.C.No.2010/12 27.04.2012 Present: SPA of the complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused Ms. Sarita Singh for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs. Parveen Kumar Gadodia C.C.No.5988/11 27.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
Complainant cross-examined in part.
Cross-examination deferred.
List on 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 B.K. Bhuraria Vs. M/s Sarvodya Furnisher (P) Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5233/1027.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Both the accused with counsel.
It appears that there are three accused persons, namely, accused company, Sunil Wadhwa and Joseph. Accused Sunil Wadhwa submits that he has been representing the accused company.
However, it appears that Notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed by the Ld. Predecessor only against two individual accused being Directors of the accused company.
I consider that all the three accused persons are separate entity and, therefore, Notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. is also required to be framed against the accused company through representing Director Sunil Wadhwa.
Accusation has been explained over to the accused company and its plea has been recorded through Sunil Wadhwa. Sunil Wadhwa has made a statement that accused company is relying upon earlier cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses conducted by his ld. counsel.
Examination of all the accused U/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. has been recorded.
Accused persons to take necessary steps in defence within 10 days.
Matter be listed on 28.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 B.K. Bhuraria Vs. M/s Sarvodya Furnisher (P) Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5233/1027.04.2012 Examination of accused company through Director Sunil Wadhwa U/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Without oath.
I understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused company. The accused company wants to say that the cheque has been issued by the accused company duly signed by me and the same was issued against the supply of goods but the same was never supplied by the complainant. All the bills filed by the complainant are forged and fabricated. I cannot say anything about the initials on Bill No.553 dated 17.01.2004, Bill No.611 dated 07.02.2004, Bill No.666 dated 27.02.2004, Bill No.730 dated 18.03.2004, Bill No. 731 dated 18.03.2004 and Bill No.733 dated 19.03.2004. I cannot say anything about cheque returning memo. However, accused company had stopped the payment of the cheque. Complainant filed false case against us. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Examination of accused Sunil Wadhwa U/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Without oath.
I understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that the cheque has been issued by the accused company duly signed by me and the same was issued against the supply of goods but the same was never supplied by the complainant. All the bills filed by the complainant are forged and fabricated. I cannot say anything about the initials on Bill No.553 dated 17.01.2004, Bill No.611 dated 07.02.2004, Bill No.666 dated 27.02.2004, Bill No.730 dated 18.03.2004, Bill No.731 dated 18.03.2004 and Bill No.733 dated 19.03.2004. I cannot say anything about cheque returning memo. I am the Director of the accused company and responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused company. However, accused company had stopped the payment of the cheque. Complainant filed false case against us. I want to lead defence evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Examination of accused Mary Joseph Wadhwa U/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Without oath.
I understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that the cheque has been issued by the accused company duly signed by Sunil Wadhwa and the same was issued against the supply of goods but the same was never supplied by the complainant. All the bills filed by the complainant are forged and fabricated. I cannot say anything about the initials on Bill No.553 dated 17.01.2004, Bill No.611 dated 07.02.2004, Bill No.666 dated 27.02.2004, Bill No.730 dated 18.03.2004, Bill No.731 dated 18.03.2004 and Bill No.733 dated 19.03.2004. I cannot say anything about cheque returning memo. I am the Director of the accused company and responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused company. However, accused company had stopped the payment of the cheque. Complainant filed false case against us. I want to lead defence evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 C.C.No.4565/10 27.04.2012 Present: Employee of the complainant, namely, Gagan.
Accused in person.
Matter settled in the Mediation Cell on 21.04.2012.
Payment is to be made in installments till 30.11.2012.
At request of the parties, list on 12.12.2012 for disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Allied Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Sukhbeer Kaur C.C.No.2491/10 27.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused has paid Rs.1,10,000/- as fourth installment to the complainant.
List for fifth installment on 28.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 C.C.No.3095/10 27.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
He submits that he wants to withdraw his application which was moved for adjustment of the cash Surety amount in the cost imposed by the court. Dismissed as withdrawn.
He submits that he has deposited the cost of Rs.40,000/- with the DLSA vide Receipt No. 55406 dated 27.04.2012. Receipt taken on record.
Direction dated 13.12.2011 stands satisfied.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Mahesh Aggarwal Vs. M/s Seven Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.2733/1027.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant further cross-examined. Discharged.
In terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
List for DE on 31.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Popular Jewellery Mart, HUF Concern Vs. M/s Bakshi Ram Rajinder Kumar Jewellers C.C.No.4469/10 & 4472/10 27.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are two matters.
Parties seek further time for settlement.
List on 18.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Alpha Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Majid Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.
27.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
At request, be listed on 22.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Inderpal Arora Vs. Param Singh Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
At his request, list on 22.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Ajay Jain Vs. Faquir Chand Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.
27.04.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
He seeks adjournment for want of counsel.
List on 23.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Vishnu Bhagwan Goel Vs. Ms. Sarita Singh C.C.No.2010/12 27.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, SPA of the complainant. On S.A. I, the above named SPA of the complainant do hereby tender my affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Hari Nath Shrivastava Vs. Om Prakash Trehan C.C.No.2913/10 27.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Nari Nath Shrivastava, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. I have received the settled amount by way of Demand Draft bearing No.075061 dated 20.04.2012 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi-110001. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused.
I have brought with me PAA Identify Card bearing No.AAOPS3662A issued by Director of Income Tax (Systems) ARA Centre, New Delhi-110055.
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 B.K. Bhuraria Vs. M/s Sarvodya Furnisher (P) Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5233/1027.04.2012 Plea of accused company through Director Sunil Wadhwa U/s 251 Cr.P.C. Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to the accused company through me. Accused company does not want to plead guilty and wants to claim trial. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Statement of accused company through Director Sunil Wadhwa. On S.A. The accused company wants to rely upon the cross-examination of the complainant CW1 and other witnesses CW2, CW3 and CW4 as conducted earlier by my ld. counsel.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Mahesh Aggarwal Vs. M/s Seven Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.2733/1027.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Mahesh Aggarwal, Complainant. XXXXX by Mr. Ajay Digpal, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. It is correct that I had got issued the reply dated 14.07.2008 through my counsel which is Exh.CW1/DA. It is correct that in a Notice dated 18.05.2008 there is no mention about the cheques in issue. (Vol. I had informed everything to my Lawyer who in his wisdom had decided not to mention the same). It is wrong to suggest that the cheques in issue were not issued for the purpose of discharging the liability. It is wrong to suggest that the material which I had supplied to the accused was of inferior quality. It is wrong to suggest that no payment as claimed by me in the complaint is payable. It is wrong to suggest that the account was finally settled for Rs.25,000/- on 04.07.2007. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the present complaint on incorrect facts. It is wrong to suggest that any notice has every been issued and served on the accused No.1. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/4 bear my handwriting. It is wrong to suggest that the Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/4 bear my handwriting at Point A. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/4 bear my handwriting or of my employees. It is correct that in my complaint I have not placed any document showing any transaction which had been taken place between me and the accused. (Vol. The cheques have been placed on record). It is wrong to suggest that no bill has been placed on the record as there was no transaction for which the cheque in issued have been issued. (Vol. I have placed all the bills in civil recovery with the accused). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Mayur Publications Vs. New Lakshmi Book Depot C.C.No.4322/A/08 27.04.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
He submits that inadvertently he could file the process fee for summoning of the accused.
He submits that the process fee is ready with him.
One more opportunity to the complainant.
Accused to summoned for 07.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s FIL Industries Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Dixit Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.
27.04.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
At request, adjourned to 24.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 G.S. Tayal Vs. M/s Sanjay Steel Tube Co. & Ors.
File taken up on an application for release of DDs moved by the accused.
C.C.No.2555/10
27.04.2012
Present: Accused with counsel.
He submits that accused had filed six DDs totalling Rs.8 lacs in this case.
He submits that in his application, inadvertently he has mentioned four DDs.
He further submits that all the matters pending between the parties have been settled in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 24.04.2012 wherein these six DDs are also mentioned.
He also submits that for the purpose of revalidation and handing over the same to the respective complainants, the DDs are required.
He filed a copy of order of the Hon'ble High of Delhi dated 24.04.2012.
Let the six DDs deposited by the accused as observed in order dated 28.01.2012 be released to the accused as per rules.
List on date fixed i.e. 29.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 C.C.No.3351/10 27.04.2012 Present: None.
Bailable Warrant unexecuted due to shortage of staff. 5004 Despite repeated calls since morning, no one is appearing.
It appears that on earlier occasions, no one was appearing and only on 01.08.2011, counsel for the complainant was present and further opportunity was given subject to cost but the same cost was not deposited. Even on the last date i.e. 14.12.2011, no one was present.
It is now 03.30 p.m., the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Kiran Bala Vs. Mukukt Dhari C.C.No.5004/10 27.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
An application for cancellation of NBW has been filed by the convict. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused is a Govt. Servant.
Matter listed for arguments on sentence. Accused is present. The NBW is cancelled.
Arguments on sentence heard.
Accused is seeking for leniency on the ground that he is Govt. Servant and he is sole bread earner for his family having three children and widow mother. He further submits that he is even ready to pay the amount in installments.
As against this, complainant is praying for maximum punishment on the ground that accused is deliberately withheld her amount and deliberately delayed the matter on the pretext of payment.
Having considered the submissions, I deem it appropriate to award a sentence of simple imprisonment of six months together with a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- with the default further simple imprisonment of one month. Out of the fine, Rs.80,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Rest of the amount to remain with the State.
Accused has filed application for suspension of sentence.
He is admitted on bail for filing of appeal for one month subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. He furnished the same. Accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be given dasti.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 C.C.No.2134/10 27.04.2012 Present: Convict with counsel.
He has furnished the bail bond and surety bond as required in terms of last order. Accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Shri Krishna Electronics and Anr.
C.C.No.2511/10
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He submits that he will file Vakalatnama.
He further submits that the matter is only to be withdrawn to be settled.
He seeks time.
At request, list on 23.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Bharat Electronics C.C.No.2509/10 27.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons on the accused duly served.
Ld. Counsel submits that he will file Vakalatnama.
He further submits that the matter is only to be withdrawn to be settled.
He seeks time.
At request, list on 23.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Ajay Jain Vs. Himmat Lal B. Hiran File placed by the Ahlmad with his noting that the same could not be placed on the date fixed.
C.C.No.2041/1027.04.2012 Present: Ahlamd in person.
It appears that fixed date was 24.04.2012.
Office is warned to be careful in future.
Report be called from the concerned SHO regarding the process issued in this case U/s 83 Cr.P.C.
List on 30.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Ms. Rajwant Kaur Vs. Sukhdev Singh @ Sachdev Singh File placed by the Ahlmad with his noting that the same could not be placed on the date fixed.
C.C.No.5998/11
27.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
It appears that vide order dated 10.04.2012, Ld. Appellate Court remanded the matter to this court for 17.04.2012 on which date filed could not be placed by the Ahlmad.
Office is warned to be careful in future.
At request of the ld. counsel, list on 28.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Metro Refrigeration & Elect.
C.C.No.2507/1027.04.2012 Present: Employee of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Both the counsels have filed their Vakalatnama.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he is newly engaged and, therefore, he will obtain certified copies of the documents and, thereafter, provide the same to the accused.
List on 30.06.2012 for further proceedings.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Jagdish Babu C.C.No.4955/10 27.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Matter settled in Mediation Cell.
Accused has paid Rs.1 lac to the complainant. Receiving of complainant taken on the last order sheet.
List for remaining payment on 28.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Darrick Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Gajanan PundalikRao Khanderay C.C.No.276/10 27.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Copy of warrant received.
Report is not readable.
Bailable Warrant be issued for 30.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Darrick Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Singh C.C.No.2325/10 27.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
As per Nazarat Branch, process has not been received from out of station.
Let summons be issued afresh for 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Suman Chopra Vs. Poonam Sehgal C.C.No.3752/10 27.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
This is a Parcha Yaddast as the office has sent the file to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
An exemption application of the accused has been filed.
It appears that matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is listed on 25.07.2012.
Adjourned for 18.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Pritam Singh Vs. Vimal Sharma C.C.No.989/10 27.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel has filed his Vakalatnama and prayed for one more opportunity.
I consider that on the ground of change of counsel, no further opportunity can be given.
Opportunity to lead defence evidence is closed.
Put up for arguments on 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Libra Leasing Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar Saini C.C.No.2269/10 27.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Summons not received back.
Fresh summons be issued to the witness.
Accused to provide the details and to also assist the process server failing which no further opportunity will be given.
List on 30.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Atul Kumar Pandey Vs. Rajesh Kumar C.C.No.2932/10 27.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Accused has filed an application for summoning of witness.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that his earlier application was dismissed in default.
He submits that he was busy in some other court and, therefore, could not appear when the earlier application was called on 20.04.2012.
One opportunity.
Both the witness be summoned for 29.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Sunrise Freight Forrwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 27.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused Raj Kumar for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Mohit Singla Vs. Ms. Ekta Kamlesh Mehta C.C.No. 27.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused Ms. Ekta Kaamlesh Mehta for the next date of hearing.
Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs. Parveen Kumar Gadodia C.C.No.5988/11 27.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Complainant (recalled for cross-examination). On S.A. XXXXX by Mr. Harish Dua, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
For the last about five years, I have been having dealings with the accused. I do not remember when I supplied goods to the accused for the first time, perhaps in the year 2006 or 2007. There was no other firm owned by me in which I was having dealings with the accused. I have accounts of the dealings with the accused since the day started dealing with him. I have filed the statements of the dealings with the accused for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011. It is correct that the opening balance as on 01.04.2009 is Rs.2,95,195/- as shown in Exh.CW1/8. It is correct that there is no document filed on record that accused is liable to pay Rs.2,95,195/- to me on 01.04.2009. It is correct that I have not filed any voucher/bill or any document to show that as on 01.04.2009, the accused was liable to pay Rs.2,95,195/- to me. It is correct that accused used to make payment to me as well. (Vol. The cash payment was received against return of cheques and receipts were issued). All the cash payments received by me from the accused are reflected in Exh.CW1/8 and Exh.CW1/9. I have filed Exh.CW1/1 which shows that I am the Proprietor of M/s Jainco Paper Sales Corporation. It is wrong to suggest that it is not recorded in Exh.CW1/1 that I am the Proprietor of M/s Jainco Paper Sales Corporation. The Cheque Exh.CW1/10 was handed over to me by the accused probably on 30th or 31st August 2008. The name of the payee M/s Jainco Paper Sales Corporation and date 06.09.2008 was filled up by the accused. The said cheque was received against the payment of bill dated 23.08.2008 i.e. Exh.CW1/2. It is correct that the bill Exh.CW1/2 and cheque Exh.CW1/10 is not effected in the Ledger Account Exh.CW1/8 and Exh.CW1/9. (Vol. It is a part of the opening balance i.e. Rs.2,95,195/-). It is correct that Exh.CW1/2 is in my handwriting. It is correct that the payment was to be made within seven days. It is mentioned in the bill at Point A that cheque No. 908047 dated 06.09.2008 were received towards payment against the said bill. It is correct that the amount of cheque in Exh.CW1/10 in words and figures is in my handwriting. I had presented Exh.CW1/10 to my bankers for encashment for the first time on 05.03.2011. The date 07.02.2009 on Exh.CW1/10 at Point A is in the handwriting of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that this date is in my handwriting. The date 07.02.2009 was entered prior to expiry of six months from 06.09.2008. I do not remember the exact date when the date was changed. I do not remember who was present at the time when the date was changed in my shop but some customers were present. The date at Point B on Exh.CW1/10 i.e. 24.01.2011 is not in my handwriting. The date i.e. 24.01.2011 at Point B was changed prior to expiry of six months from 07.02.2009. It is correct that I have not mentioned the alteration/change of dates in my notice/complaint or affidavit. It is correct that at that times I used to receive cheques from the accused against bills on the date of issue of bills and at times I used to receive the cheques later on. It is wrong to suggest that the date at Point B on Exh.CW1/10 was changed by me or my employee or my representative without the consent of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that Exh.CW1/10 was received as security only. It is wrong to suggest that I have received the full payment against Exh.CW1/10 in cash. It is wrong to suggest that for this reason the cheque was not presented on 06.09.2008. It is wrong to suggest that I withheld the cheque without consideration. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had asked me a number of times to return the cheque Exh.CW1/10. It is correct that I have not mentioned in the notice, complaint or affidavit that Exh.CW1/10 was earlier presented by me.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Mohit Singla Vs. Ms. Ekta Kamlesh Mehta C.C.No. 27.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Mohit Singla, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I also rely upon additional affidavit Exh.CW1/B which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 M/s Sunrise Freight Forrwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar C.C.No. 27.04.2012 Statement of Mr. G.S. Arora, AR of the Complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/J1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012 Vijendra Tyagi Vs. Ajay Kumar C.C.No.497/10 27.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Arguments on sentence heard.
Accused is seeking leniency on the ground that no loan was taken and cheque has been misused by the complainant.
As against this, complainant is praying for maximum punishment on the ground that accused was deliberately withheld his amount and deliberately delayed the matter.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant further submits that accused has furnished wrong information about his non appearance on the last date. As against this, ld. counsel for the accused submits that the date 09.04.2012 in the application for cancellation of NBW is wrongly written by him.
I am not inclined to go any further in the controversy whether the date was wrongly written or deliberately written in the application for cancellation of NBW.
Having considered the submissions on sentence, I deem it appropriate to award a sentence of simple imprisonment of six months together with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with the default further simple imprisonment of one month. Out of the fine, Rs.70,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Rest of the amount to remain with the State.
Since punishment exceeds the limit of Section-376(b) Cr.P.C., brief reasons for decision as required U/s 355(i) Cr.P.C. are provided vide separate judgment.
Accused has filed application for suspension of sentence.
He is admitted on bail for filing of appeal for one month subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. He furnished the same. Accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be given dasti.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/27.04.2012