Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Harjeet Singh- trial abated vide order dated 28.06.2023
4. Gurcharan Singh- trial abated vide order dated 12.12.2019
7. Final Order Accused 1 Company M/s Ninestar Automotive Pvt. Ltd. is convicted.
Accused no. 2 Suneet Kaur is acquitted.
A. As per the complaint, complainant company has been stated to have supplied bearings/auto parts to Ninestar Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (accused no. 1 company from here on). The outstanding of accused no. 1 company has been stated to be Rs. 4847690/-. B. Complainant was specifically asked by Ld. Counsel for accused as to who issued the cheques in question, in the answer to which he stated that cheques in question were issued by Harjeet Singh (trial abated, accused no. 3 from here on) and not by Suneet Kaur (ac- cused no. 2 from here on). No suggestion has been given that cheques in question were not issued by accused no. 3. Thus, it amounts to admission on part of accused no. 1 company and ac- cused no. 2 that the cheques in question were issued by accused no.
C. Complainant has stated in his cross examination that cheques in question were issued by Harjeet Singh (accused no. 3, trial abated) and not by accused no. 2. No presumption u/s 139/118 NI Act has been raised against accused no. 2 as she is not the signatory of the cheques in question.
D. Section 141 (1) NI Act provides that if the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was respon- sible to the company for the conduct of the business of the com- pany, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
legations made in the complaint do not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act.
G. Even Complainant has stated in cross examination that he used to deal with Harjeet Singh (accused no. 3, trial abated) and Jasdeep Singh (not an accused in the present case but accused in 03 con- nected cases) and never dealt with Suneet Kaur (accused no. 2) re- garding the transaction in question.