Delhi District Court
M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs . Purshotam Das Gupta, on 31 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MITTAL: MM03/PHC/NEW DELHI
M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Purshotam Das Gupta,
proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency
CC No. 268/1/14
U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. Serial Number of the case : 02403R0103422006
2. Name of the complainant : M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt.
Ltd., through its authorized
representative, Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Mahesh and thereafter through
subsequent AR, Sh. S. C. Sharma.
3. Name of the accused parentage : Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor M/s
& residential address Shreeji Agro Agency, 95, Kama
House, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
4. Offence complained of or : U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
proved 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final Judgment : Convicted
7. Date of Judgment : 31.10.2014
M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 1 of 5
Date of Institution : 02.03.2006
Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.07.2014
Date of Pronouncement of judgment : 31.10.2014
JUDGMENT
Brief statement of reasons for the decision is as :
1. This is a complaint filed u/s 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) by the complainant M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized representative, Sh. Pankaj Kumar Mahesh and thereafter, through subsequent AR, Sh. S. C. Sharma against the accused Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor M/s Shreeji Agro Agency, 95, Kama House, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The brief facts of the case are :
That the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pesticides, insecticides and other Agro Chemical to the intending purchasers at agreed prices. The accused is carrying his business at Jaipur under the name and style of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency as proprietor thereof and is managing its business and looking after the day to day affairs thereof. The complainant has been supplying material i.e Insecticides, Pesticides etc to the accused against the invoices / bills. That the accused in the due course of M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 2 of 5 business had issued two cheques i.e cheque bearing no. 850652 dated 30.09.2005 and cheque no. 850653 dated 30.11.2005 for Rs.20,000/ each, both drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur to the complainant as a part payment against the outstanding dues. It is further alleged by the complainant that on presentation both the cheques got bounced for the reasons insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice dated 19.01.2006 to the accused and demanded the cheques amount and when the accused did not make the payment within stipulated period the complainant filed the present complaint case.
3. The complainant led the pre summoning evidence through its AR and on completion of the pre summoning evidence the accused was summoned for the offence u/s 138 N. I. Act. On appearance of the accused in the Court, notice u/s 251 was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In the post notice evidence, Sh. S. C. Sharma AR of the complainant company led the evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW 1/X ad relied upon the following exhibited documents:
(i) Copy of the board resolution authorizing Sh. S. C Sharma to pursue the complaint is Ex. CW1/1, statement of account of the accused maintained by the complainant is Ex. CW1/2.
(ii) Cheque bearing no. 850652 dated 30.09.2005 and cheque bearing M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 3 of 5 no. 850653 dated 30.11.2005 amounting Rs.20,000/ each, drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sadola, Jaipur are Ex. CW3 and CW4 respectively.
(iii) The returning memos are Ex.CW1/5 to 8.
(iv) Copy of legal demand notice alongwith postal dispatch receipts Ex.CW1/9 to 12.
The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The complainant did not lead further evidence and therefore the complainant's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for statement of the accused. Statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded and the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. The accused examined himself as DW1 and thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
5. I have heard final arguments from both the sides and carefully perused the record. In the present case, it has come on record (specially during S/A u/s 313 Cr.P.C) that the accused has not disputed the following facts: a. His signatures on the cheques in question as well as the issuance of the cheques from his account, b. His commercial dealing with the complainant company regarding purchasing of insecticides, pesticides from the complainant company, the dishonourment of the cheques in question, the receipt of legal demand notice and the fact that he has made a payment of Rs.40,000/ to the complainant against the cheques in question after the expiring of fifteen days of receiving the legal notice. The only defence taken by the accused that he has made the payment of the cheques in question and the same was full and final M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 4 of 5 against his outstanding liability. In his examination as a defence witness / DW1, the accused has mainly relied upon the two documents / letters Ex. DW1/ A dated 01.02.2007 and Ex. DW1/B dated 12.12.2007. It may be noted that the complainant has not disputed these documents i.e Ex. DW1/A and DW1/B because the DW1 was not cross examined regarding these documents by the complainant despite the fact that opportunity to cross examine the DW1 was granted to the complainant. A perusal of the document Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B shows that these documents are in form of letters which have been sent by the accused on the letter head of his firm to the complainant company. In the document Ex. DW1/A dated 01.02.2007, it has been mentioned that the accused has sent a demand draft bearing no. 306056 dated 01.02.2007 amounting Rs.20,000/ and the same has been sent regarding the payment of cheque bearing no. 850652 Ex. CW1/3. In the document Ex. DW1/B dated 12.12.2007, it has been mentioned that the accused has sent a demand draft bearing no. 095933 dated 12.12.2007 amounting Rs.20,000/ and the same has been sent regarding the payment of cheque bearing no. 850653 Ex. CW1/4. It has been further mentioned in this document Ex.DW1/B that now no amount is due against the accused regarding which details have already been sent to the complainant.
6. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the accused has not disputed his liability towards the complainant regarding the cheques in question, however he has taken the defence that the cheques amount in M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 5 of 5 question i.e Rs.40,000/ was paid by him by two demand drafts and the last demand draft cleared the entire outstanding of the accused towards the complainant. It is not disputed by the accused that the said payment was made after the expiry of statutory period of fifteen days from the receipt of receiving of legal demand notice. Moreover, it is also clear from the record that the legal notice is dated 19.01.2006 and the payments were made by the accused on 01.02.2007 and 12.12.2007. It is settled preposition of law that the offence u/s 138 N. I. Act stands committed if the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within fifteen days of receiving the legal demand notice. The subsequent making of payment does not absolve the drawer of the cheque / accused from the criminal liability u/s 138 N. I. Act. AS noted above, it has come on record that the accused had made the payment of the cheques amount in question and as per the document DW 1/B, the subsequent payment made by draft dated 12.12.2007 was towards the outstanding liability of the accused. This fact can be considered at the time of order on sentence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the accused regarding the fact that the legal notice was not served, legal notice was defective, Marketing Manager was not examined etc seems to be no help to the accused. As far as arguments regarding jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, the same is also of not helpful to the accused in view of the latest judgment of Supreme Court in the case titled as Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009 decided on M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 6 of 5 01.08.2014. In this judgment it has been held that those matters which reached at the stage of complainant evidence, will be decided by the course where that cases are pending.
7. Consequently, the accused is convicted for the offence u/s 138 N. I. Act. Copy of judgment to be provided to the accused free of cost and let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Pronounced in the open court (Dheeraj Mittal) on 31.10.2014 MM03/PHC/NDD/New Delhi
M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pursotam Das Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Agro Agency page 7 of 5