Delhi District Court
Jogendra Singh Bagga vs . Manoj Sehgal on 10 April, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS PRABH DEEP KAUR : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -
02 : SOUTH : SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
JOGENDRA SINGH BAGGA VS. MANOJ SEHGAL
CC No. 469504/2016
U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
JUDGMENT
(1) Serial number of the case : 469504/2016
(2) Name of the complainant : Jogendra Singh Bagga,
S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh Bagga
R/o H.No. J-21, Saket, New Delhi
(3) Name of the accused, : Manoj Sehgal
parentage and address S/o Sh. M.P. Sehgal
R/o H.No. C-37, 3rd Floor,
East of Kailash, New Delhi
(4) Offence complained of or proved : 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
(5) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(6) Final Order : CONVICTED
(7) Date of Institution : 18.03.2016
(8) Date on which reserved for
judgment : 04.04.2018
(9) Date of Judgment : 10.04.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The brief facts of this case as carved out from the complaint are that accused had taken short term financial/monetary help of Rs. 10 lacs from the complainant on the pretext that accused urgently require the money for Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 1 of 18 2 some property deal and accused will return the same within two months. Thereafter, the complainant presented cheque no. 544188 dated 05.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs drawn on Andhra Bank, Branch Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter "the cheque in question") handed over by the accused towards discharge of his admitted liability with the assurance that the said cheque will be cleared. The cheque in question was returned unpaid with the banker of complainant with remarks "Insufficient Funds" on 15.12.2015. Again being assured by accused, complainant has presented the cheque in the bank on 29.01.2016 but the same was again returned unpaid with remarks "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, on failure of accused to pay the cheque in question amount, a legal demand notice dated 10.02.2016 was sent to the accused. Despite that payment of the cheque in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the Act").
2. In the pre-summoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence Ex. CW1/A was filed by the complainant. The complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents are cheque in question is Ex.CW1/1, its return memo dated 30.01.2016 is Ex. CW-1/2, return memo dated 15.12.2015 is mark -B, office copy of legal notice is mark -A, postal receipt is Ex. CW-1/3 and the tracking report is Ex. CW-1/4.
After closure of pre-summoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 CrPC was passed Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 2 of 18 3 against the accused vide order dated 22.03.2016.
3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of Bailable Warrants and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 20.07.2016 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused further stated that he had no liability towards the complainant. Accused stated that he does not know the complainant and the above said cheque including other cheques alongwith blank papers were left in the car of his friend Mr. Sudhir Atri. He stated that the said documents alongwith the cheques were missing and he along with him filed a missing report. Accused stated that the above said cheque only bears his signatures and the other contents have not been filled up by him. After appearing in the Court and receiving the copy of complaint, he filed a complaint in PS Amar Colony regarding theft and misuse of the above said cheque. Accused further stated that he did not receive the legal notice of demand and he has no legal liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.
4. Thereafter, upon application of accused U/s 145(2) N I Act to cross examine complainant and his witnesses, the same was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2016 and the accused was given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Complainant has examined himself as CW-1 during post summoning evidence. He was duly cross examined by the counsel for the accused. No other complainant witness was produced by the complainant. Thereafter, CE was closed vide order dated 05.12.2016. Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 3 of 18 4
5. Thereafter, the plea of the accused Manoj Sehgal u/s 313 r/w 281 CrPC was recorded vide order dated 24.01.2017, wherein, all material existing on record including the exhibited documents were put to accused. Accused stated that he does not even know the complainant and the cheque in question alongwith some documents were stolen from his friend's car. The name of his friend is Sudhir Attari and the cheque and the blank papers which were stolen have been misused. Accused further stated that he has not received the legal notice and the cheque in question only bears his signatures. Rest of the columns/contents have been written by someone else which is apparent from the careful look with the bare eyes.
Accused further expressed his desire to lead defence evidence.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for DE and accused examined Sh. Manish Arora as DW-1 and Sh. Sudhir Atree as DW-2 in his defence evidence. Perusal of record shows that DW Sudhir Attri was examined as DW-2 on 11.01.18 and inadvertently his presence was marked as DW-3 and thereafter, he was even cross examined as DW-3 on 15.03.18. However, there is only one witness ie Sudhir Attri who has been termed as DW-2 as well as DW-3 due to typographical error.
No other defence witness was produced by the accused and thus, DE was closed vide order dated 15.03.2018 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. It has been argued on behalf of complainant that complainant has duly proved his case by examining himself as CW-1. During cross examination of Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 4 of 18 5 complainant, the complainant produced receipt dated 05.11.2014 which is an admission by the accused that he has taken loan from the complainant. The accused has remained silent qua this receipt and the testimony of complainant has remained unrebutted. Now the onus is upon the accused to prove his defence. The accused has taken defence that he has not taken any loan from the complainant and he has lost some blank signed documents and cheques kept in car of his friend Sh Sudhir Attri. But it has been argued that it is highly improbable that any person would keep blank signed papers and cheques along with him. It has been further argued that DW-1 Manish Arora was a link between complainant & accused and complainant had advanced loan because of Manish Arora. Further, during cross examination, Manish Arora s DW-1 has admitted that he had filled the cheque in question. It has been further argued by the complainant that accused and DW-1 Manish Arora have filed complaints after a lapse of substantial period which creates a reasonable doubt over the truthfulness of complaint. Further, complainant has pointed out the testimony of DW-1 and has said that the testimony of DW-1 Manish Arora as well as of DW Sudhir Attri are not relevant as both the persons are facing criminal trials U/s 138 N I Act filed by the complainant herein and the fact is that the accused in connivance with DW-1/Manish Arora and DW Sudhir Attri along with two-three more persons have cheated the complainant by taking loan from him and complainant being a senior citizen person suffering from various ailments has to fight for his own money. It has been further argued that the accused has not proved any defence while presumptions U/s 119 r/w 141 N I Act are against the Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 5 of 18 6 accused. Thus, the accused has failed to prove his defence while the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that complainant has completely failed to prove that there is a legally enforceable or recoverable debt or liability against the accused while the most fundamental essential ingredient for the prosecution U/s 138 N I Act is "existence of legally recoverable debt or liability". It has been further argued that throughout the trial, complainant has not mentioned the date, month or year when he has given loan to the accused nor he has mentioned the date, month or year when the cheque in question was issued by the accused. Ld counsel for accused has read para nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint to show that complainant has not even disclosed when the loan was given, what was the mode of payment of loan nor the date, month or year when accused approached the complainant because it is an unaccounted money and complainant cannot take help of the court to recover unaccounted money. Further, the ld counsel for accused has drawn the attention of the court towards the memo of parties wherein the particulars of the accused have been written as "Manoj Sehgal s/o Not Known" and it has been argued that how it is possible that complainant may give such a huge loan amount to any person whose proper particulars are not even known to the complainant. Further, the Ld counsel for accused has drawn the attention of the court towards the cross examination of the complainant wherein the complainant has admitted that he has not filed his ITR for last 8-9 Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 6 of 18 7 years and he has even failed to disclose the amount given to accused as loan in his ITR. It has been further argued that complainant has failed to produce ITRs despite opportunities being given which clearly shows that the money which complainant is trying to recover through the present litigation is an unaccounted money. Further, ld counsel for accused has relied upon the judgments of :
a. Sushila Badola vs Tushar Patni & Anr. Crl.MC No. 1396/2010 (para no. 23) b. G Pankajakshi Amma and others vs Mathai Mathew and another (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 83 (para No. 9) c. Sanjay Mishra vs Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr. Crl.
Application No. 4694 of 2008 (para no. 12 onwards) It has been further argued that in view of above mentioned judgments, it is clear that the court cannot help the complainant to recover unaccounted money and the bank statements filed by the complainant are irrelevant when the money is unaccounted money. It has been further argued that the testimony of DW-1/Manish Arora clearly proves that no loan was given in his presence while the complainant has falsely alleged during his cross examination that he has given money to the accused in presence of Manish Arora and Sudhir Attri. It has been argued that thus, the complainant has failed to prove his case and has failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable liability. The accused is required to show only a probable defence and accused has been able to discharge his part of burden of proof while complainant failed to prove his own case, therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
8. Arguments advanced by both parties heard. Case file perused Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 7 of 18 8 meticulously.
9. In order to prove an offence under Section 138 NI Act, following ingredients are required to be fulfilled :
i) That there is legally enforceable debt or liability;
ii) The drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to discharge in part or whole the said legally enforceable debt or liability,
iii) The cheque so issued was returned unpaid by the banker of the drawer.
iv) Legal demand notice was served upon the accused and the accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
10. In the case at hand, receipt of legal notice and the legal liability of accused to pay the cheque amount to the complainant are in dispute.
11. Now, this court shall deal with the defences of accused one by one.
11A. FIRST DEFENCE AS TO NON RECEIPT OF LEGAL NOTICE A1. One line of defence taken by the accused is that he did not receive the legal notice of demand dated 10.02.2016 Mark A. One of the essential ingredients for proving an offence U/s 138 N I Act is the sending the legal notice of demand. The complainant has alleged that the legal notice of demand dated 10.02.2016 Mark A was sent to the accused through speed post on the correct address of accused, receipt of which is ExCW1/3.
A2. Section 114 of Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to communications sent by post and it enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act envisages that when a registered notice is posted, it is presumed to have been served unless rebuttal is Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 8 of 18 9 given. In the present case, no evidence in rebuttal has been led by the accused. A3. In CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held --
"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along-with the copy of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s. 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
A4. Further, in the present case, accused has mentioned the same address on the bail bonds furnished on 09.06.2016 which is the same address on which the complainant had sent the legal notice.
Therefore, in view of the above said dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as discussion above, this court holds that the legal notice dated 10.02.2016 Mark A was served on the accused.
11B. SECOND DEFENCE AS TO LEGAL LIABILITY B1. It is a well settled position of law that when a negotiable instrument is drawn, two statutory presumptions arises in favour of the complaint, one under Section 139 NI Act and another under Section 118 (a) of the NI Act. Further, the court will presume a negotiable instrument for Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 9 of 18 10 consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or consider the non existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent person may ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. Reliance placed on M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39).
B2. In the present case, as per complainant, accused had taken short term financial help of Rs10 lacs from the complainant for two months in cash and he issued cheque in question to return the loan amount and cheque in question got dishonoured and accused failed to make the payment of cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice.
On the other hand, as per accused, the cheque in question as blank signed cheque along with some documents was stolen from the car of his friend namely Sudhir Attri and the same has been misused.
B3. Now, to prove his defence, accused has cross examined the complainant. The complainant has produced receipt dated 05.11.2014 (ExCW1/R1) and deposed that :
"I had given the amount of Rs10 lacs in cash to the accused on 05.11.2014 and a receipt was executed by the accused............The said loan amount of Rs10 lacs was given to accused in presence of Sudhir Attri and Manish Arora".
Further, the complainant has deposed that :
Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 10 of 18 11 "Today I have brought the original loan receipt dated 05.11.2014 which is now exhibited as ExCW1/R1 which bears signatures of accused Manoj Sehgal at point A............... I have brought my bank statement from Yes Bank, Saket for the period 01.01.2014 to 20.10.2016 showing my financial potency during the relevant period and the same is exhibited as ExCW1/R1 (colly) 11 pages".
Perusal of bank statement of complainant shows that complainant always had sufficient amount in his bank and he had sound financial capacity to grant loan of Rs10 lacs to the accused.
B4. Now, the accused has taken plea that the complainant is in business of money laundering and he has unaccounted money because complainant does not file ITRs. The relevant portion of cross examination of the complainant is as follows :
"It is correct that there is no document regarding loan amount apart from receipt dated 05.11.14 and Ex.CW1/R3. It is correct that I do not have any printed performa / letter head to get the same signed at the time of advancement of loan. I have not maintained any register to record the name of persons to whom I have given friendly loan in good faith in response they provide the cheques to me. It is correct that I only take cheques with due signatures from the persons at the time of giving friendly loan to repay the same...........................It is correct that there is no mentioning of friendly loan in good faith in complaint, legal notice dated 10.02.16 and evidence by way of affidavit filed in the court. It is correct that it is not mentioned in complaint that I have given the friendly loan in presence of Sudhir Atree. It is correct that as mentioned in para no.3 of the complaint, the friendly loan was advanced for the period of two months. I am not a money lender....................It is correct that the friendly loan amount given by me to various persons as a sum of number of crores...................I retained the cash amount with me and I had given the loan of Rs. 10 lakh to accused in cash. I have not got any agreement signed Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 11 of 18 12 for the advancement of the present friendly loan. Q1. I put it to you that as per your bank statement which is Ex.CW1/R4, there is frequent transactions as to withdrawl and depositing of amount which reflects that you are a professional money lender? What you have to say?
Ans. It is wrong to suggest so".
Thus, the testimony of complainant has remained unrebutted and complainant has vehemently denied that he is in money laundering business though he has admitted that he has given friendly loan to other persons too. Now, no suggestion has been put to the complainant that he gives money to various persons on interest or he is giving loan to various persons commercially for the purpose of earning interest. Mere the fact that a person has given loan to other persons, does not prove ipso-facto that that person is in business of money laundering.
B5. During trial as well as final arguments, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant has not shown the said loan in question in his ITRs and therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, money being unaccounted money. On the other hand, the complainant has opposed the same.
The accused has relied upon the judgments mentioned in para no. 7 of this judgment. The judgments relied upon by the accused are not applicable to the facts in hand. In the case of G Pankajakshi Amma ((as mentioned in para no. 7 of this judgment), the facts were entirely different as there was a chit fund transactions between parties and complainant therein had admitted during evidence that he earned Rs30,000/- from money lending business and in this Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 12 of 18 13 prospective, court held that :
"In our view the trial court was absolutely right. The first respondent is a moneylender. He has admitted that he earned Rs30,000/- from money lending business. As a moneylender he is statutorily bound, by virtue of Section 9 of the Kerala Moneylenders Act 1958, to maintain books of accounts. His statement that he has not maintained the records which could be produced in court is very significant. That statement coupled with the further statement that both the parties had agreed that these were to be unaccounted transactions required the court to draw an adverse inference against him".
Similarly in the case of Sanjay Mishra (as mentioned in para no. 7 of this judgment), the relevant facts were that :
"In the cross examination, the applicant has categorically stated thus :
....The entire amount was given in cash. The entire amount was my cash amount. The cash amount was kept at my Chamber's residence. At that time, it was unaccounted. I had not disclosed this amount to the Income Tax after giving the loan till date. There was no agreement for interest on the amount given.
7.It is true that merely because amount advanced is not shown in Income Tax Return, in every case, one cannot jump to the conclusion that that presumption under section 139 of the said Act stands rebutted. There may be cases where a small amount less than a sum of Rs20,000/- is advanced in cash by way of loan which may be repayable within few days or within few months. A complainant may not show the said amount in the Income Tax Return as it is repayable within few days or few months in the same financial year. In such a case the failure to show the amount in the Income Tax Return may not by itself amount to rebuttal of presumption under section 139 of the said Act. If in a given case the amount advanced by the complainant to the accused is a large amount and is not repayable within few months, the failure to disclose the amount in Income Tax Return or Books to of accounts of the complainant may be rebut the presumption under section 139 of the sufficient said Act.
Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 13 of 18 14
8. In the present case, the amount was allegedly advanced in September 2004. The amount is a large amount of Rs15 lacs. This is a case where not only that there is a failure to disclose the amount of loan in the Income Tax Return of the applicant till the year 2006 but there is a categorical admission on the part of the applicant that the amount was an 'unaccounted'.
13. In the present case, there is a categorical admission that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant was entirely a cash amount and that the amount was 'unaccounted'. He admitted not only that the same was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant time but till recording of evidence in the year it was disclosed in the Income Tax return. By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that liability to repay unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable liability within the meaning of explanation to section 138 of the said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally recoverable dent.
14. In the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd & ors (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 463, the Apex Court has held that : the laws relating to the said Act are required to be interpreted in the light of the object intended to be achieved by it despite there being deviation from general law. The Apex Court expressed that the object of section 138 of the said Act was to ensure that commercial and mercantile activities are conducted in smooth and healthy manner. The explanation to section 138 of the said Act clearly provides that a debt or other liability referred to in section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The alleged liability to repay an unaccounted cash amount admittedly not disclosed in the Income Tax Return cannot be a legally recoverable liability.......................The provision of section amount. A cheque 138 cannot be resorted to for recovery of an unaccounted issued in discharge of alleged liability of repaying 'unaccounted' cash amount cannot be said to be a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability within the meaning of explanation of section 138 of the said Act. Such an effort to misuse the provision of section 138 of the said Act has to be discouraged".
Thus, in view of admission of complainant that the amount was an Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 14 of 18 15 unaccounted amount, the court has taken adverse inference against the complainant.
Similarly, in the case of Mrs Sushila Badola (as mentioned in para no. 7 of this judgment), the issue was related to friendly loan of Rs02 crores given by way of cash and the Court was dealing with the issue where the complainant has not stepped into the witness box as CW and only POA Holder of the complainant has examined himself and the court was also dealing with the question whether competency of POA for giving evidence on behalf of complainant, has been correctly decided by the court or not. The issue before the court was not whether it was an unaccounted money or not.
However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sheela Sharma vs Mahendra Pal 2016 Law Suit (Del) 4859, held that non disclosure of loan advanced by complainant to the accused may attract penal provisions under the Income Tax Act but the same has no consequences on the proceedings of the complaint U/s 138 N I Act.
In the present case, the testimony of complainant has remained unrebutted and complainant has categorically denied that he is in possession of unaccounted money. He has also filed bank statement to show that he had sound financial capacity and therefore, in view of the dictum of the above mentioned judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as on the basis of principles of unjust enrichment, the plea of the accused is not sustainable and the case of complainant cannot fail entirely on the ground that complainant has failed to reflect the loan advanced to accused in his ITR. Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 15 of 18 16 B6. Now, to prove his defence, accused has examined DW-1 Manish Arora and DW-2 Sudhir Attri. The testimony of these witnesses has to be read with abundant caution keeping in mind that both the witnesses are accused persons and are facing trial U/s 138 N I Act filed by the same complainant herein. and both the witnesses have categorically stated that no loan was given to the accused in their presence whereas the complainant has deposed that loan was given to the accused in presence of these witnesses.
Now, during cross examination, DW1 Manish Arora has admitted that he has filled the particulars of cheque in question ExCW1/1 at the request of complainant. It is highly improbable that any person would fill the particulars of cheque on the request of another person without even asking the purpose of same and without even raising the doubt specifically when the cheque is drawn from the account of accused who is stated to be good friend of DW-1 Manish Arora. Further DW-1 also deposed that "It is correct that I cannot state that accused has taken Rs10 lacs from Bagga or not".
Further, DW-2 deposed during cross examination that he has filed the complaint nearby the time when accused lodge complaint on 01.06.2016 but he has not disclosed the exact date or month of the same. Regarding the delay of 6-7 months, he has said that "I have lodged the complaint after a gap of approx. 6-7 months (6-7 months from the loss of documents and cheques of the accused from the car of this witness) because for this time of 6-7 months, I was thoroughly searching the documents and cheques in my house and documents and cheques of accused got lost from my car". The witness has not given details as to date, Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 16 of 18 17 month or year when he has lost the cheques or papers of accused nor he has even given the details of date, month or year when he came to have concrete knowledge regarding loss of documents and cheques of accused.
Thus, both the defence witnesses have given evasive kind of testimonies and have given testimonies which are full of lacunaes for which no explanation is coming forward.
B7. Further, the court is in agreement with the plea of complainant that it is highly improbable that a person would keep blank signed papers and cheques along with him without any purpose. Further, the court can take judicial notice of the fact that there are 02 NCRs on record, (NCRs being a public record), one is dated 01.06.2016 being filed by the accused herein (is now Mark A for the purpose of identification) and another complaint dated 12.05.2016 being filed by the DW-2 Sudhir Attri herein (is now Mark B for the purpose of identification). In the complaint dated 01.06.2016 Mark A filed by accused, he has stated that he has lost one cheque along with some signed papers but no cheque no. or details of papers have been mentioned but in the previous complaint dated 12.05.2016 Mark B, DW-2 Sudhir Attri has specifically mentioned the cheque no. ie the cheque in question. Perusal of these complaints, creates a reasonable doubt over the truthfulness of plea of accused and DW2 Sudhir Attri and no reason is coming forward why these complaints have not been relied upon by the accused during his defence evidence.
12. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the presumptions arising in favour of the complainant U/s Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 17 of 18 18 118 & 139 of the Act have not been rebutted by the accused by preponderance of probabilities, whereas the complainant has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubts. Resultantly, this court finds the accused Manoj Sehgal s/o Sh M P Sehgal guilty for the offence punishable U/s 138 N I Act. Hence, he stands convicted.
13. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence on 10.05.2018. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost. Digitally signed
PRABH by PRABH
DEEP KAUR
Announced in the open court DEEP Date:
on 10.04.2018 2018.04.11
KAUR 14:29:59 +0530
(PRABH DEEP KAUR)
Metropolitan Magistrate-02/N I Act/South
Saket Court/New Delhi
Certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signature.
(PRABH DEEP KAUR) Metropolitan Magistrate-02/N I Act/South Saket Court/New Delhi Jogender Singh Bagga Vs. Manoj Sehgal CC No. 469504/2016 Page 18 of 18