IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY], MM (NI ACT)-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: NEW DELHI New [CASE NUMBER] Under [SECTION] of [ACT] In the matter of: M/s [ENTITY] Through its Director [ENTITY] RZ-126/A, D-94, Gali no.03, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110 045. Complainant Versus [ENTITY] s/o Shri Inderjeet Maini Proprietor of M/s Vatsalaya RZ-3C, Dada Chatri Wala Marg, Raj Nagar Part-I, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110 045 Also at :- WZ-3, Umdesh Bhawan, Main Bus Stand Road, Palam Village, New Delhi. Accused Date of Institution : 26.02.2016 Date on which judgment was reserved : 04.06.2018 Date of Judgment : 13.07.2018 JUDGMENT
1. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] complainant as narrated in the complaint is that the complainant is a private limited company, registered under [ACT], engaged in business of financial and investment consultancy services and has approached the court through its director namely [ENTITY]. It is the case of the complainant company that the accused had approached the complainant company for a personal loan of Rs.2 lacs. The complainant company had advanced the said loan amount of Rs.2 lacs @ 18 % interest per annum to the accused vide cheque bearing no.[SECTION]9172 dated 22.06.2013 for sum of Rs.50,000/- and vide cheque no.[SECTION]9178 dated 12.08.2013 for sum of Rs 1.5 lacs. At the time of advancement of the loan amount, the accused had executed documents namely receipt dated 22.06.2013 (Ex.CW1/3) and a promissory note dated 22.06.2013 (Ex.CW1/4) in favour of the complainant and one receipt dated 12.08.2013 Ex.CW1/5 and promissory note dated 12.08.2013 Ex.CW1/6. It is the case of the complainant company that to discharge his liability to repay the loan amount, the accused had issued a post dated cheque bearing no.974935 dated 30.09.20[SECTION] drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Sector 05, Dwarka, New Delhi for Rs.2,76,500/- in favour of the complainant Ex.CW1/8 (hereinafter called as cheque in question). The complainant has averred in its complaint that the complainant was maintaining proper book of accounts and as per the ledger account (Ex.CW1/7), an outstanding amount of Rs.2,76,500/- was to be paid by the accused as on 30.09.20[SECTION] i.e. the date of the cheque in question. The complainant presented the cheque in question for encashment on 04.01.2016 which to the despair of the complainant, got dishonoured on M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] presentation with the remarks Funds Insufficient vide cheque return memo dated 04.01.2016 (Ex.CW1/9). Thereafter, the complainant immediately contacted the accused. However, on one pretext or the other, the accused started to avoid the complainant. This constrained the complainant to send a legal notice dated 19.01.2016 (Ex.CW1/10) to the accused on both his addressee, which was duly served on the accused. The tracking report has been exhibited as CW1/13 and Ex.CW1/14. The said legal notice went unheeded and this led to the filing of the present case.
2 Cognizance of the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was taken against the accused and summons were issued. The accused entered appearance. Notice under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. In his plea of defence, recorded on 11.11.2016, accused admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature and the same was given to the complainant company. The accused also admitted the factum of having taken loan of Rs.2 lacs from the complainant. However, the defence of the accused was that he had already paid sum of Rs.1,17,500/- to the complainant company and he admitted his liability to the tune of Rs.90,000/- towards the complainant. At the same time, the accused admitted that he had received the legal demand notice sent by the complainant.
EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT
3. In Post Summoning Evidence, the complainant chose M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] to examine its AR / director Shri [ENTITY] as CW1 and the said witness adopted his Pre-Summoning Evidence. The accused had filed an application under [SECTION] [ACT] and the accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant. However, nothing substantial could be elicited from the cross examination of the complainant which could support the defence of the accused or create doubts on the credibility of the witness. In his cross examination, the director of the complainant (CW1) admitted that the complainant company has filed various other cases for recovery of loans and the same are pending in district courts Dwarka, New Delhi. The witness has testified that the complainant company was having some surplus money and to earn good returns on the said surplus money, loans were advanced by the complainant company. It was also testified by the witness that the cheque in question was handed over by the accused to the complainant company in August 2013. The witness categorically denied the suggestion that the accused had repaid sum of Rs.1,17,500/- towards the loan in question.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED 4 The accused did not examine any defence witness to prove and substantiate the defence disclosed by him at the stage of framing of notice under [SECTION] [ACT], from cross- examination of complainant CW1 and during the statement of accused recorded under [SECTION] [ACT].
5. The factual position being thus, now let us quickly run through the legal benchmark which is to be satisfied in order to M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] constitute an offence u/[SECTION] [ACT]:
(i) that the person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of certain amount of money to another person from out of that account.
(ii) that a cheque should have been issued for discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability.
(iii) that the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
(v) that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
(vi) the drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within [SECTION] days of the receipt of the said notice.
6. Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when, all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied, that a person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
7. File perused and submissions heard. Let us determine, whether the accused has succeeded in establishing M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] various defence taken by him. The service of legal notice having been admitted and therefore, let us turn into the core issue as to whether the cheque in question was issued to discharge legal liability towards the complainant.
EXISTENCE OF LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT OR LIABILITY.
8. Let us briefly recapitulate that the accused has admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature and the same is drawn on the bank account maintained in his name. However, it is the case of the accused that the cheque in question was issued as a security cheque in a blank signed condition to the complainant, at the time when the loan amount of Rs.2 lacs was advanced to him by the complainant. Therefore, once the accused admits that the cheque in question bears his signature and the cheque in question are drawn on a bank account maintained by him, a factual basis is established, to invoke the presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge of a legally sustainable liability and drawn for a good consideration arises by virtue of [SECTION] of [ACT].
9 It is an established proposition of law that once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under 139 [ACT] has to be raised in favour of the complainant. It is a mandatory presumption though the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. In a catena of judgments, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] court that such presumption in favour of the complainant cannot be rebutted by a mere plausible explanation but more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence.
10. Let us analyze, whether the accused has succeeded in rebutting the presumption as contemplated under [SECTION] of [ACT].
11. To begin with, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complaint filed by the complainant company ought to be dismissed at the threshold as the director / AR of the complainant was not competent to depose as witness on behalf of the complainant company. Reliance has been placed on the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT], passed by Hon'ble Apex Court to argue that the director Shri [ENTITY] (CW1) was not competent to depose on behalf of complainant company as he was not having personal knowledge regarding the loan transaction which allegedly took place between the complainant company and the accused. This argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as during the cross-examination of the AR / director (CW1), no such suggestion relating to the competency of the director to depose on behalf of the complainant company was ever put to the witness. At the same time, perusal of cross-examination of CW1 reveals that it was the case of the accused that the CW1 had himself received part payment of Rs.1,17,500/- from the accused on behalf of the complainant company and had himself acknowledged the receipt M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] of the same on behalf of the complainant company. Thus, impliedly, the accused at that stage of trial, had himself admitted that CW1 was actively involved in the loan transaction that allegedly took place between the accused and the complainant company.
12. At the stage of final arguments, it has also been argued on behalf of the accused that the present complaint was filed by its director without producing any authority letter in his favour and therefore, the present complaint has not been validly instituted. In my opinion, the present complaint filed by the complainant company is fully maintainable even if, it is held that the present complaint has been filed by its director Shri [ENTITY] without any authority letter. In the instant case, as per the cause title, and the avernment, the complainant company has approached the court through some human agency, namely, a director of the company, in preferring the complaint, as the company has no soul, mind, body and limbs. If the complainant company had approached the court through some other person, who is not concerned or connected with the affairs of the company, then, necessarily it has to authorize that person to file the complaint on its behalf. Therefore, in this case, the company being the complainant through its director is competent to file the complaint even without any authorization.
13. This concept could be inferred by looking from other angle also. The [ACT] does not provide any mode as to how a complaint can be filed by and on behalf of the company. However, under [SECTION] of the M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] Act, if the offence is committed by the company under [SECTION] of [ACT], it is provided that every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly.
14. [SECTION] provides that in case, it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on part of, any manager, director, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and furnished accordingly.
[SECTION]. Thus, from the reading of [SECTION] of the [ACT], so far as the firm or any other company or a corporate body is concerned, a person who was Incharge of, and was responsible to, the company shall be guilty of the offence for the purpose of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
16. On the basis of [SECTION] of the [ACT], though it contemplates a case, in which company is an accused, on the basis of the same analogy, even in the case of company being a complainant, it can be inferred that the person who can file a complaint on behalf of the company would be a person, who is Incharge of, or was responsible to, the company. In other words, he must be a person, whose actions, would be binding on the M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] company.
17. In [PRECEDENT]., it was again reiterated that the complaint is maintainable, though file without the authorization of the company, since the representative who had brought the complaint was closely connected with the affairs of the company.
18. At the same time, the objection raised by the accused is fully answered against the accused as per the celebrated decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of [PRECEDENT], in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the cases filed by the companies should not be dismissed on technical ground with respect to the validity of the institution, and in fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court went on further to hold that as long as the case is contested to the hilt, it ought to be held that the case (civil or criminal) was validly instituted and filed. Therefore, the objection of the accused to the effect that the complaint has not been validly filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
19. Coming to the merits of the case, the defence of the accused which has been disclosed by him is that he had made part payment of Rs.1,17,500/- to the complainant company and therefore, on the date of presentation of the cheque in question, the accused only owed sum of Rs.90,000/- and not Rs.2,76,500/- (i.e. the amount of cheque in question). Thus, the cheque in question cannot be said to have been issued for discharge of any M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] enforceable debt or liability within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT].
20. At the same time, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the cheque in question is a security cheque and the same has been misused by the complainant and therefore, the accused ought to be acquitted on this ground alone. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that during framing of notice and during his examination under [SECTION] [ACT], the accused had admitted liability to the tune of Rs.90,000/- and that the accused was willing to discharge the balance loan amount of Rs.90,000/-.
21 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that even if one were to proceed on the premise that the cheque in question was a blank signed cheque given as security at the time when the loan in question was disbursed to the accused, the same by itself was not a valid ground to hold that the accused had been able to rebut the statutory presumption with regard to the existence of the debt, under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant has been able to establish the crystallized and ascertained liability of the accused. The cheque has been used by the complainant for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues (principle amount and interest), since the accused failed to repay the loan which was advanced to him by the complainant. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that the whole purpose of taking a security cheque is to enable the complainant to use and encash the same in case of failure of the accused to discharge its ascertained liability for repayment of the principle M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] amount and the interest thereon. It has been further argued on behalf of the complainant that the accused has failed to raise any doubts with regard to the accounts which were being maintained by the complainant and the computation of the liability of the accused.
22 Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held by Hon'ble High Court that it matters little if the name of the payee, date and amount are filled up at a subsequent point of time, when the admitted position is that the blank signed cheque had been handed over to the complainant under the transaction entered into between the parties. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the evidence of the complainant's witness has gone unrebutted. At the same time, it has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that apart from the mere ipsi dixi of the accused that the accused had made part payment, amounting to Rs.1,17,500/-, in installments, as has been claimed by him, the accused did not lead any evidence to establish each and every of those payments. At the same time, while admitting his liability to the tune of Rs.90,000/-, the accused did not even take into consideration the liability arising on account of the interest on the principle sum of Rs.2 lacs in terms of the agreement entered into the parties. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the accused has not set up a probable defence to rebut the presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]
23. On the aspect of maintainability of a complaint under [SECTION] [ACT] in respect of a security cheque (including in respect of a security cheque which is issued in relation to a liability which does not exist on the date of issuance of such a cheque, but is contingent upon future transactions), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the legal position in the case titled as [PRECEDENT]. Appeal No.601/20[SECTION] decided on 14.05.20[SECTION], and in [PRECEDENT] Appeal no.729/20[SECTION] decided on 29.06.20[SECTION].
24 In [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has came to following conclusion:-
27. Thus, the debt or other liability has to be a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Neither the main provisions of [SECTION], nor the explanation suggests that the debt or other liability should be in existence on the date of issuance of the cheque, i.e. on the date of its delivery to the drawee or someone on his behalf or, on the date that the cheque bears. The only reference to time in the section, is the point of time when the cheque is returned unpaid by the drawer's bank.
28. In my view, therefore, the scope of [SECTION] [ACT], would cover cases where the ascertained and crystallized debt or other liability exists on the date that the cheque is presented, and not only to case M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] where the debt or other liability exists on the date on which it was delivered to the seller as a post dated cheque, or as a current cheque with credit period. The liability, though, should be in relation to the transaction in respect whereof the cheque is given, and cannot relate to some other independent liability. If, on the date that the cheque is presented, the ascertained and crystallized debt or other liability relatable to the dishonoured cheque exists, the dishonour of the cheque would invite action under [SECTION] [ACT]. There could be situations where, for example, and issue may be raised with regard to the quality, quantity, deficiency, specifications, etc., of the goods / services supplied, or accounting.
It would have to be examined on a case to case basis, whether an ascertained or crystallized debt or other liability exists, which could be enforced by resort to [SECTION] of [ACT], or not.
25. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that complaint under [SECTION] of [ACT], is not maintainable in respect of a security cheque, is devoid off merits and is liable to be dismissed.
26. Thus, even if, one were to accept the version of the accused that the cheque in question was a security cheque given as a blank signed cheque in respect of a future / contingent liability, that by itself would not be sufficient to non suit the complainant by holding that a complaint under [SECTION] of [ACT] is not maintainable. It was for the accused to set up a M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] probable defence with regard to the existence of liability or its quantification, as projected by the complainant. In the present case, the accused did not raise any such probable defence. The accused has claimed to have made part payments to the tune of Rs.1,17,500/- to the complainant on numerous occasions. However, they were not substantiated by leading any evidence, much less cogent and credible. On the other hand, the complainant has produced the receipt Ex.CW1/3 and Ex.CW1/5 and promissory notes Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/6 and the statement of account Ex.CW1/7, which was being maintained by the complainant. The statement of account Ex.CW1/7, which was being maintained by the complainant, clearly shows that an outstanding amount of Rs.2,76,500/- stood outstanding as on 30.09.20[SECTION] i.e. the date of the cheque in question.
27. On the other hand, except bald assertions of the accused that he has made part repayment of the loan of Rs.2 lacs at the stage of framing of notice and during his examination under [SECTION] [ACT], not even an iota of evidence has been brought on record to support his defence. It is a settled law that the statement of accused under [SECTION] [ACT] or under [SECTION] [ACT] is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under [SECTION] [ACT] or under [SECTION] [ACT], cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that the explanation given by the accused, is M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] truthful. In the present case, the accused at the stage of recording of plea of defence, stated that the cheque in question was given as security to the complainant. If the accused wanted to prove this, he was supposed to appear in the witness box and testify and get himself subjected to cross-examination. His explanation that the cheque in question was handed over as security in lieu of the loan taken from the complainant and that of repayment of the loan has to be rejected as the accused did not appear in the witness box to dispel the presumption that the cheque in question was issued as security. Mere fact that the suggestions to this effect were put to the complainant's witness or mere explanation given in the statement of accused under [SECTION] [ACT], that the cheque in question was a security cheque, does not amount to proof.
28. At the stage of final arguments, it was also argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant company has not obtained any license from RBI for entering into business of advancement of loan and therefore, the present transaction as has been alleged by the complainant is illegal and therefore the alleged debt in discharge of which, the cheque in question has been alleged to have been issued, is irrecoverable. However, this argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused is specious as admittedly, the complainant company does not come within the meaning of non banking financial company (NBFC) and therefore, the business of the complainant company is not regulated by RBI. Thus, there is no requirement of taking any permission from RBI before lending of any loan to any person by the complainant company.
M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]
29. As a last ditch effort, at the time of final arguments, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the director of the complainant company has during his cross-examination, admitted that the complainant company had advanced loan to other persons also and therefore, the complainant company is a money lender and therefore, it is debarred from recovering his loan, in absence of a money-lending license.
30. This argument advanced on behalf of the accused fails to persuade me in light of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rendered in case titled as '[PRECEDENT] date of decision 27.03.2014), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under similar facts held:-
In my view, even if the appellant / complainant was engaged in lending money, that would not debar her from filing a complaint under [SECTION] [ACT], if a cheque issued to her towards repayment of the loan advanced by her is dishonoured by a bank for want of funds and the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within the prescribed time, after receipt of legal notice from the render. [SECTION] of [ACT], which applies to Delhi, to the extent it is relevant provides that notwithstanding any contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit by a money lender for the recovery of a loan shall, after the commencement of the act, be dismissed unless the money lender at the time of institution of the suit is registered and hold a valid license or holds a certificate from the commissioner under [SECTION] of the Act, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted or if he is not already a registered or licensed money lender, he satisfies the court that he has applied for such registration or license, but the application is pending. The aforesaid provision does not debar a M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] money lender from instituting a complaint under [SECTION] of the [ACT], which is a remedy enforceable before a criminal court, and totally independent of a civil suit. The criminal liability is incurred only in case a cheque is issued in discharge of a debt or any other liability, the said cheque is dishonoured for want of funds and the borrower fails to make payment of the amount of the cheque even after the receipt of notice from the lender .
31. It is, therefore, apparent that the embargo is with respect of filing of suit for recovery of money or simply the recovery of that money. This fails to have a bearing on the present case, since what is at hand is a complaint case under [SECTION] [ACT], which is not a recovery proceedings but are proceedings to punish a person who after issuing a cheque fails to honour the same and also commits a default in paying the said amount on receipt of the notice.
32. Hence, the argument of amount being irrecoverable and therefore, not a legally enforceable debt is misconceived in the facts of the case and in view of the legal position as enunciated above.
33. As a last ditch effort, it was vociferously argued on behalf of the accused that the promissory notes Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/6, were not valid in light of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and therefore, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. In my opinion, this argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused is totally misconceived as the basis of the present complaint is the loan transaction that took place between the complainant company and the accused and not the promissory M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] notes Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/6.
34. The cheque in question has been issued by the accused to discharge his liability to repay the original loan amount of Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest. Promissory notes Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/6, have been placed on record by the complainant to corroborate the fact of advancement of loan by the complainant company to the accused. Thus, even if, it is assumed that the promissory notes are invalid, it would not inexorably result in the dismissal of the complaint as the accused has himself admitted taking of loan of Rs.2 lacs from the complainant company.
35. At the same time, the defence of the accused of repayment of partial loan amount to the tune of Rs.1,17,500/-, in cash cannot be accepted as the same is barred by the provisions of [ACT] and therefore, the court cannot recognize and validate any transaction, if any, which has been made in contravention of the mandate of any statute for the time being in force. It is apposite to mention here that as per [SECTION] of [ACT], any kind of repayment of loan amount by any person, above the sum of Rs.20,000/- cannot be done in cash. A perusal of the [SECTION] of [ACT] clearly shows that there is a bar of repayment of any loan amount above the sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash. Any such repayment has to be by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee draft. At the same time, consequences of contravention of [SECTION] of [ACT] have been provided in [SECTION] of the [ACT], which M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] provides, that if a loan or deposit is accepted in contravention in provision of [SECTION], then a penalty equivalent to the amount of such loan or deposit may be levied by the Joint Commissioner. Thus, there is a bar which pertains to repayment of loan amount in cash and therefore, the defence of the accused of repayment of the loan amount in cash, is in violation of the mandate of [ACT] and therefore, stands rejected.
36. Furthermore, it has already been proved on record that the legal notice was validly served on the accused. The non reply of the legal notice, is also circumstances that is to be marshalled against the accused.
37. Therefore, in my opinion, the accused has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of legal liability even on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The defence of the accused cannot be termed as a plausible defence.
38. The sheer lack of even an iota of material on record, to this effect, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the defence of the accused is a complete lie.
39. Cumulatively seen, there is no evidence, much less cogent or credible, on record to prove the contention of the accused that he had repaid sum of Rs.1,17,500/- to the complainant company.
40. Therefore, all factors, cumulatively seen, go on to show that the accused has miserably failed to probablize the M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] defence set up by him with respect to the cheque amounting to Rs.2,76,500/- (Ex.CW1/8). The presumption of legal liability under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has gone unrebutted. The complainant has successfully proved the basic ingredients of the offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
41. Resultantly, the accused [ENTITY] stands convicted for the offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
42. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
43. Let a digitally signed copy of the Judgment be supplied to the accused, free of cost and a copy of the Judgment be placed on record. Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Decided on 13.07.2018. NAGPAL Date:
2018.07.13 16:53:04 +0530 Announced in open court.
([ENTITY]) MM ([ACT] M/s [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]