Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In his pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself on affidavit Ex. CW-1/1. He reiterated the contents of complaint and placed on record, original cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. cheque in question bearing no. 091060 dated 25.05.2018 drawn on Allahabad Bank Janak Puri, New Delhi as Ex. CW-1/A, cheque returning memos dated 29.05.2018 as Ex. CW-1/, legal demand notice dated 05.06.2018 as Ex. CW-1/C, receipt of speed post as Ex. CW-1/D, tracking report as Ex. CW-1/E. Mahesh Singh Vs. Anshul CC No.24610/18 Page no. 2 of 13

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that this is a fit case for conviction of the accused as all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Act read with Section 139 of the Act have been fulfilled and that the same has been aptly demonstrated by the complainant before the court. It was argued that accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in answer to notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He argued that accused never gave reply to the legal demand notice. He also argued that, accused did not produce any evidence in support of his version. It is also argued that neither was Kishan examined as witness by accused, nor did accused produced any agreement or deed rearding alleged purchase of shop from said Kishan. It is argued that accused did not lodge any legal proceedings against complainant for alleged misused of cheque in question. It was argued that accused failed to raise the probable defence to disprove the case of Mahesh Singh Vs. Anshul CC No.24610/18 Page no. 3 of 13 complainant and to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. Therefore, accused be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

3. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
4. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured.
5. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer Mahesh Singh Vs. Anshul CC No.24610/18 Page no. 4 of 13 within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.

Mahesh Singh Vs. Anshul CC No.24610/18 Page no. 12 of 13

24. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

25. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.

26. Copy of Judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.

Digitally signed 
                                                        MRIDUL       by MRIDUL

                                                        GUPTA        Date: 2019.04.26
                                                                     15:19:15 +0530

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT                       (MRIDUL GUPTA)
TODAY i.e. 26th April, 2019                 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
                                          DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS/ DELHI




Mahesh Singh Vs. Anshul                CC No.24610/18              Page no. 13 of 13