INTHECOURTOFMS.VRINDAKUMARI:ADDL. SESSIONSJUDGE/SPECIALJUDGE:CBI03 (PCACT)SOUTHDISTRICT:SAKETCOURTS: NEWDELHI CNRNO.:DLST010058062016 CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16) [ENTITY] s/oSh.ManmohanSharma r/oH.No.146,AsolaHousingComplex, AsolaExtension,NewDelhi74 Appellant Vs. 1.TheState(NCTofDelhi) [ENTITY] s/oLateSh.G.S.Sabharwal r/oH.No.90/5,3rdFloor, MalviyaNagar,NewDelhi Respondents Dateoffilingofappeal : 21.10.2016 Dateofallocationofappeal : 22.10.2016 Argumentsconcludedon : 19.04.2017 Dateofjudgment : 08.05.2017 CriminalAppealundersection374[ACT]againstthe impugnedjudgmentdated06.10.2016andorderonsentence dated07.10.2016incaseCCno.177/14,u/[SECTION],PS MalviyaNagartitledas'AnilSabharwalVs.[ENTITY]' pronouncedbyLd.MM01,South,SaketCourts,NewDelhi CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.1/18 JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgmentdated06.10.2016andorderonsentencedated07.10.2016 pronouncedbyLd.MM01(South),Saket,NewDelhiincaseCC No.177/14titledas'AnilSabharwalvs.[ENTITY]'.
2. The allegation against the appellantconvict [ENTITY],indischargeofhislegalliability,issuedcheques Nos. 039723, 039724, 039725, 039726 and 039727 worth Rs. 10,00,000/eachalldrawnonHDFCbank,Chattarpur,NewDelhi branch in favour of the complainant which were returned back unpaidduetothereason'PaymentstoppedbyDrawer'videreturn memosdated20.12.2013and02.01.2014.Despiteserviceoflegal demandnoticedated08.01.2014,hefailedtomakethepaymentof thesaidchequeswithinthestipulatedtimeandtherebycommitted anoffencepunishableu/[SECTION].
3. Vide the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016, appellantconvictwasconvictedoftheoffence u/[SECTION]. Videtheimpugnedorderonsentencedated07.10.2016,appellant convictwassentencedtoundergosimpleimprisonmentof8months. HewasalsodirectedtopaycompensationofRs.50,00,000/tothe respondentNo.2.Indefaultofpaymentofcompensation,heshall furtherundergoSIof4months.
[CASE NUMBER]
4. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds.ItisaverredthatLd.TrialCourtfailedtoappreciatethat thesaidchequesweregiveninblankbytheappellantconvictas securitychequesagainstloanofRs.50,000/inFebruary2011.The respondentno.2complainantcouldnotprovehisfinancialcapacity tolendtheappellantconvictahugesumofamount.Thedetailsof thechequeswerefilledinbytherespondentNo.2(complainant) himselfandthereisneitheranydocumentofsaleofthepropertyof respondentNo.2noristhereanydocumentregardingtheloanfrom [ENTITY]. The respondent No. 2 has failed to prove his case beyondreasonabledoubt.Itisaverredthatrespondentno.2hasnot filedanydocumentpertainingtothepropertyno.56and39and respondentno.2hasnotfiledanyITRmentioningtheallegedloan either.ThetransactionofRs.50lacincashisillegalandcannotbe recoveredU/[SECTION]. Itisaverredthatifanytransactionin cashisworthmorethan20,000/,itviolatesprovisionsU/[SECTION] IncomeTaxActandispunishableU/[ACT]Itis averredthatthedocumentEx.PW1/Fstatesthattheappellantwas given the loan by the respondent no. 2. The said document was neveradmittedbytheappellant.Witnesstothedocument,namely, Sh. [ENTITY] was not examined. It is submitted that despite denialbytheappellantconvict,thecomplainantrespondentdidnot takeanystepsforgettinghissignaturesverifiedformCFSL.Itis furthersubmittedthattheappellantneverchangedhisversionfrom [CASE NUMBER] thebeginningtillendthatthechequesinquestionwerefortheloan of Rs. 50,000/ and the loan already stood paid. Further, the mandatorylegaldemandnoticewasnotservedontheappellant convict. On these grounds, the appellantconvict has prayed for settingasidetheimpugnedjudgmentandorderonsentence.
5. The appeal has been vehemently opposed by the respondentcomplainant.
6. Ihaveheardtherivalcontentionsandhaveperusedthe recordcarefullyincludingthetrialcourtrecord.
7. Thecaseoftherespondentcomplainantisthathehad advancedaloanamountofRs.50lacsinFebruary,2011tothe appellantconvict against the securityof ownership documents of propertyno.56,AsolaVillage,FatehpurBeri,NewDelhiandfive cheques in question worth Rs. 10 lacs each. After a month, the appellantconvict collected the said ownership documents on the pretext of repaying the loan. When the respondentcomplainant realizedthemalafideintentionofappellantconvictwhocouldnot be traced out, the cheques were presented in the Bank for encashment.Uponpresentation,theyweredishonoured.
8. Issuanceofchequesinquestionbearingnos.039726, 039723, 039724, 039725 and 039727 is not disputed. The contentionoftheappellantconvictisthathehadgiven11blank signedchequesincludingthechequesinquestiontotherespondent CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.4/18 complainantatthetimeoftakingloan.Thesechequesweretowards theprincipalamountandtowardsinterest.Hisdefence,however,is that he had taken a loan amount of Rs. 50,000/ and not Rs. 50,00,000/.Thereisabsolutelynoevidenceonrecordtoshowthat theloanamountwasRs.50,000/andnotRs.50,00,000/.
9. I will now come to the hand written document Ex.PW1/FexecutedonRs.100/stamppaper.Thisdocumentisnot ahappilywordedone.Thecomplainantexplainedduringthecourse ofargumentsthathewas12thpass.Theappellantconvictisalsonot verywelleducated.Thisdocumentbearsthesignaturesofappellant convict on the front page as well as on the rear. It is regarding advancing of loan of Rs. 50 lacs against which ownership documentsofplotno.56,AsolaVillage,FatehpurBeri,NewDelhi werealsohandedoverassecurity.Allthefivechequesinquestion findmentioninthisdocumentanditisstatedthatthesechequesare worthRs.10lacseach.Itisalsoclearfromthedocumentsthatthese chequeswerehandedoverinrespectoftheloantransactionbetween therespondentcomplainantAnilSabharwalandappellantconvict [ENTITY]
10. One of the major arguments of the appellantconvict regardingthedocumentEx.PW1/Fisthatthisdocumentwasnotput to the appellantconvict during the recording of S/A U/[SECTION] [ACT],and,therefore,itcannotbeconsidered.Hehasreliedupon the judgment dated 28/05/2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of [CASE NUMBER] India in [CASE NUMBER] StateofAssam' whereinithasbeenheldthat thecircumstances whicharenotputtotheaccusedinhisexaminationundersection 313CrPCcannotbeusedagainsthimandmustbeexcludedfrom consideration.
11. Under [SECTION] [ACT], all the incriminating circumstancesappearinginevidenceagainsttheaccusedmustbe puttohimforexplanation.Nodoubt,intheS/AU/[SECTION][ACT], thehandwrittenloandocument(ExhPW1/F)wasnotspecifically puttotheappellant-convictbuttheissueiswhetherithascaused anyprejudicetotheappellant-convict.
12. Vide judgment dated 02/05/2011 in '[PRECEDENT]' ,[CASE NUMBER], Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia discussedvariouscaselawson theissueofsection313CrPCandobserved:
"Theseobservationsproceedontheprinciplethat ifanobjectionastothe313statementistakenat theearlieststage,thecourtcanmakegoodthe defectandrecordanadditionalstatementasthat wouldbeintheinterestofallbutifthematteris allowedtolingeronandtheobjectionsaretaken belatedlyitwouldbeadifficult situationforthe prosecutionaswellastheaccused.Inthecase [CASE NUMBER] beforeus,asalreadyindicated,theobjectionas to the defective 313 statements had not been raised in the trial court. We must assume thereforethatnoprejudicehadbeenfeltbythe appellantsevenassumingthatsomeincriminating circumstancesintheprosecutionstoryhadbeen leftout."
13. In the instant case, the objection related to the documenthavingnotbeenputtotheappellantconvictinS/Au/s 313CrPChasbeentakenupforthefirsttimeduringthecourseof argumentsintheinstantappeal.Nosuchobjectionwastakenbefore Ld Trial Court. The written arguments filed by the appellant - convictatthestageoffinalargumentsbeforetheTrialCourtandthe impugnedjudgmentshowthattheonlycontentionraisedbeforethe trial court was that the document Exh PW 1/F was a forged document. Absence of any objection before Ld. Trial Court, specificallyinlightofSection313(5)[ACT],cansafelyleadthe Courttotheinferencethatnoprejudicewascausedtotheappellant convictbecauseofthisomission.Thisobjectionhasnotbeentaken even in the grounds mentioned in the appeal. It shows that no prejudice was felt by the appellantconvict even though this document was not put to him in S/A U/[SECTION] [ACT] His explanationofthisincriminatingevidenceisthatitwasaforged documentandthisexplanationismanifestinthecrossexamination CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.7/18 ofthecomplainantandduringthearguments.
14. Besidesthelegaldemandnoticedated08.01.2014and thecircumstanceofnonpaymentofthechequeamountsonreceipt ofthelegaldemandnoticewasputtotheaccusedduringrecording ofS/A.Bywayofputtinglegalnoticetotheappellantconvict,all thecontentsofthesaidlegalnoticewereputtohim.Inthislegal demandnotice(Ex.PW1/I),ithasbeenspecificallymentionedthat on02.06.2011,therespondentcomplainantdisposedofoneofthe floors(secondfloor)ofhishousebearingno.90/5,MalviyaNagar, NewDelhi110017andalsomanagedmoneyfromothersourcesto advance the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/ in cash to the appellant convict on 17.01.2012. On the same date, five PDCs dated 17.12.2013 worth Rs. 10,00,000/ were handed over to the respondentcomplainantbytheaccused.Towardsthistransaction,a handwrittendocumentwasalsoexecutedbytheappellantconvict on08.02.2011inthepresenceofSh.[ENTITY],anacquaintance of the appellantconvict. This document is Ex.PW1/F. All these incriminating circumstances were within the knowledge of the appellantconvictatthetimeofrecordingofS/Aspecificallywhen the legal demand notice containing all the incriminating circumstances was put to him. The complainant was also cross examined on 06.07.2015 as well as 25.08.2015 on this issue involving the document Ex.PW1/F. In these circumstances, this documentcannotbeignored.
[CASE NUMBER]
15. Further,thedefenceoftheappellantconvictisthathis signaturesonEx.PW1/Fareforgedones.Thisdocumentsnotonly bears the signatures of the accused on its face, it also bears his signatures on the rear page. The document is undated but the endorsement of the stamp agent shows that it was purchased on 08.02.2011.Thebaldassertionthatthesignaturesoftheappellant convictareforgedisnotsufficienttodiscreditthisdocument.
16. Regarding the legal demand notice dated 08.01.2014 (Ex.PW1/I),thecontentionoftheappellantconvictisthathenever receivedit.Ld.Counselfortheappellantconvicthaspointedout thatinthecomplaintitself,therespondentcomplainanthasadmitted thenonserviceoflegaldemandnotice.Ithasalsobeenpointedthat in fact the appellantconvict himself had issued a legal demand notice dated 28.01.2014 demanding the return of the 11 blank signedchequessincetheloanamountofRs.50,000/hadalready beenpaidalongwithinterest.Itissubmittedthatonthislegalnotice, the address of the appellantconvict is mentioned as 146, Asola HousingComplex,AsolaExtension,NewDelhiwhereasthelegal demandnoticedated08.01.2014wasissuedtobeservedatH.NO. 373,AsolaFatehpurBeri,NewDelhi110074.
17. Ihaveperusedpara17ofthecomplaintwhereinthe circumstancesinwhichthePostmanoftheChhattarpurPostOffice firstwithheldserviceoflegalnoticeEx.PW1/Ibutuponlearning aboutthequeriesofthecomplainant,hegotthesameservedonthe CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.9/18 accused.Itismentionedinthecomplaintthataccusedreceivedthe notice from the postman on 26.01.2014 even though it was a Sunday.Itisfurthersubmittedthatitwasinthesecircumstancesand tothwartthelegalremedyavailabletotherespondentcomplainant, theappellantconvictissuedthelegalnoticedated28.01.2014onthe basisoffalsegroundsmentioningincorrectaddressoftheappellant convict.Thus,thereisnoadmissionoftherespondentcomplainant that the legal demand notice was not served upon the appellant convict.
18. AttentionoftheCourthasbeendrawnbyld.Counsel for the respondentcomplainant to the supporting affidavit of the appellantconvictfiledalongwithhisapplicationU/[SECTION] Act in which the appellantconvict has mentioned his address as 373,AsolaVilage,FatehpurBeri.Ithasbeenfurtherpointedoutby ldcounselfortherespondent-complainantthatthesummonsinthe instantcasewerealso issuedagainsttheappellantconvictatthe 373,Asolaaddress.
19. Ihavecarefullyperusedthelegaldemandnoticedated 08.01.2014(Ex.PW1/I)ofthecomplainantandlegalnoticedated 28.01.2014 of the appellantconvict. In his legal notice, the appellantconvict has averred that he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/incashattheinterestof5%permonthfordurationofsix monthsandthisloanwasgrantedinthemonthofJanuary,2012.11 blankbutsignedPDCstowardstheloanamountandinterest,i.e.5 [CASE NUMBER] chequesofRs.10,000/andsixchequesofRs.2,500/eachwere handedovertotherespondentcomplainantatthetimeoftakingthe loan.Thislegalnoticealsomentionsthattheagreedloanamount wasrepaidinsixmonthsbutdespiterequestthePDCswerenot returned.
20. Ithasnotbeenexplainedbytheappellantconvictthat ifthepostdatedchequeswereissuedinJanuary,2012towardsthe loanamountasmentionedaboveandiftheloanamountwasrepaid withinsixmonthsofgrantofloani.e.byJuly,2012,whydidthe appellantconvict wait till 28.01.2014 to issue such notice. The Courtisconvincedthatissuanceofnoticedated28.01.2014afterthe issuanceofnoticebythecomplainanton08.01.2014isnotamere coincidence. Theaccusedhasalsonotbroughtanydocumenton recordtoshowthathewasnotresidingat373,AsolaVillage,New Delhi at the relevant time. In fact, the reply of the respondent complainanttothelegalnoticeoftheappellantconvictwasduly servedonhimat 373,AsolaVillage,NewDelhialso. Thus,the appellantconvictfailedtorebutthepresumptionU/[SECTION] [ACT].
21. Thenextcontentionoftheappellantconvictisthatthe respondentcomplainantcouldnotprovetheexistenceofalegally enforceabledebtofRs50lakhasthesamewasnotreflectedinhis [CASE NUMBER] ITRreturns.Ithasalsobeenarguedthatthecomplainantcouldnot prove how he arranged such large amount for advancing loan. Amongstvariouscaselaws,healsorelieduponthejudgmentdated 06/10/2015 in [CASE NUMBER] titledas '[PRECEDENT].Inthiscase,while dealingwithvariousaspectsofthematter,Hon'bleHighCourtof Delhialsoobserved:
"The petitioner could not, on the other hand, satisfytherequirementoflawindischargingonus inthesecondinstanceregardingthepleaofthe respondent of no liability or nonexistence of a legallyenforceabledebt.Theadvanceofloanof suchamountisrequiredtobedisclosedunderthe ITR return (referred to [SECTION] of the [ACT])"
22. Thisissuewas,however,wasextensivelydiscussedby Hon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinjudgmentdated30/06/2015inCrl LP567/2014titledas'LekhRajSharmavsYashPalGupta'andit washeld:
"21. The finding that, as the amount of loan disbursedtotherespondentwasnotshowninthe balancesheetandITR,theappellantcouldnotbe [CASE NUMBER] said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,isalsoerroneous."
23. Hon'ble Delhi High Court also placed reliance on 'DeelipAptevsNileshPSalgaonkar&Anr,2006(6)BomCR653' and'KrishnaPMorajkarvsJoeFerrao,2013CRIJ(NOC)572 Bombay(Decidedon19.07.2013)'.
24. [ENTITY]:
"Theunderlinedobservationsdonotdiscloseasto wherecanonefindaprohibitiononrecovering amountsnotdisclosedinincometaxreturns.With utmost humility, I have to state that I have not come across any provision [ACT], whichmakesanamountnotshownintheincome taxreturnsunrecoverable.Theentireschemeof [ACT] for ensuring that all amountsareaccountedfor.Ifsomeamountsare not accounted for, the person would be visited with the penalty or at times even prosecution undertheIncomeTaxAct,butitdoesnotmean thattheborrowercanrefusetopaytheamount whichhehasborrowedsimply,becausethereis some infraction of the provisions of [ACT]. Infraction of provisions [ACT] the defaulter and advantage thereof cannot be takenbytheborrower.Inmyhumbleview,tosay that an amount not disclosed in the income tax returnsbecomesirrecoverablewoulditselfdefeat the provisions ofSection 138of the [ACT].Apartfrom the purpose ofthis Act,whichhasbeenoutlinedbythelearnedSingle JudgeinShriDeelipApte(supra)aswellasin SanjayMishra(supra),itoughttobeseenthatthe moment a person seeks to recover through a cheque an amount advanced in cash it gets amounted for in the system and the revenue authorities can keep a track of that and if necessary tax the person. To brand an amount which is not shown [ACT] as unaccountedmoneywouldbetoofarfetchedand, therefore,Iaminrespectfuldisagreementwiththe observationsinSanjayMishra(supra),whichin factamountstoreadinganadditionalrequirement [ACT] and legislating that such amounts becomes irrecoverable.Atthecostofrepetition,forsaying that an amount not disclosed in income tax CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.14/18 returns cannot be legally recoverable liability, someprovisionsoflawtothateffectwouldhaveto beshown.Suchprovisionwasnotnoticedbyme and eventhelearnedCounselfortherespondent couldnotshowanysuchprovisiontome."
Inlightoftheabovecaselaws,nonmentioningofthe loanamountintheITRsisnotfataltothecaseoftherespondent complainant.
25. The trial court record suggests that the transaction underconsiderationwasnottheonlytransactionbetweentheparties tothislitigation.Thereisallegationoftherespondentcomplainant thatinthebeginningoftheyear2011,theappellantconvicthadalso inducedhimtoenterintoanagreementtopurchasethepropertyof appellantconvictbearingplotno.237,AsolaVillageandpayan amountofRs.5lacsasadvancevidechequedated05.07.2011.He furtherpaidanamountofRs.3lacsuponrequestoftheappellant convict.Later,itturnedoutthattheappellantconvictwasnotthe ownerofthesaidplot.Despiteefforts,theappellantconvictalsodid notreturntheamount.[CASE NUMBER] FatehpurBeriwasregisteredagainsttheappellantconvictuponthe complaint of the respondentcomplainant. An FIR no. 699 dated [ENTITY].[ENTITY] regardingplotno.39,Asolaagainsttherespondentcomplainantand [CASE NUMBER] also involving the appellantconvict. I will discuss the circumstancesinwhichthisFIRwasregisteredinthefollowingpara whiledwellingonthedurationoftheloaninquestion.
26. Thecaseofthecomplainantthatemergesfromthelegal demandnotice(ExhPW1/I),complaintandaffidavitofevidenceis thatheadvancedloanofRs50lakhonlytotheappellantconvict againsttheownershipdocumentsoftheplotno.56,AsolaVillage, FatehpurBeri,NewDelhi.Theaccusedalsoissuedandhandedover the five cheques in question worth Rs 10 lakh each to the complainant as security. The complainant arranged for the loan amountofRs50lakhpartlybydisposingofthe2nd floorofhis houseno.90/5,MalviyaNagar,NewDelhi(Rs38lakhonly)and partlyfromhisfriendoneShRajeshGoel(Rs12lakh).Theloan document (Exh PW1/F) was also executed. After a month of advancing the loan amount, the appellantconvict collected the propertydocumentsfromcomplainantonthepretextofpaymentof thesaidloanandleftthedocumentsofplotno.39withhim.Copies ofthedocumentspertainingtoPlotno.39havealsobeenplacedon record. However, after this development, the appellantconvict started avoiding the complainant. The respondent - complainant also learnt later that the appellantconvict had sold the property no.56andrealizedthathewasalsoavoidingrepaymentoftheloan. The oral contention of the respondentcomplainant is that the appellantconvictcontinuedtoassurehimthathewouldrepaythe CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.16/18 amountwhichhebelievedasthepropertypapersofplotno.39had beenhandedoverbytheappellantconvict.Itlaterturnedoutthe plotno.39toohadbeensoldofftooneMs[ENTITY]Kumaribythe appellantconvictandFIRinrespectofthistransactionwaslodged by Ms [ENTITY] in the year 2014. In these circumstances, though it has not been specifically mentioned, the case of the [ENTITY] anditwasonlywhentheappellantaccusedcouldnotbetracedout that he presented the cheques in question for encashment which weredishonoured.
27. Theappellantconvicthasvehementlyarguedthatthe complainthasnotprovedthathehadsoldoffthesecondfloorofthe houseno.90/5anddidnotproduceanydocumenttothiseffect.The cross examination of the complainant/PW1 would show that the appellantconvicthasonlyputtohimthesuggestionthathehadnot filed the said document on record which he admitted. Another suggestion was that he had not sold any such property which suggestion he denied. The appellant - convict did not, however, challenge thecomplainanttoproducethesaid document.Sucha challengewasessentialinlightoftheloandocumentExhPW1/Fin whichtheloanamountofRs50lakhhasbeenclearlymentioned.It is,however,notedthattherespondentcomplainanthadtakensteps tosummontherecordoftheregisteredsaledeedfromtheofficeof theconcernedSubRegistraranddetailsoftheregisteredsaledeed CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.17/18 too were provided. However, despite service of summons, the recordwasneverproduced.Laterthecomplainant'sevidencewas directedtobeclosed.[ENTITY],theentiregamutoffactsand evidenceonrecordconclusivelytiltthescaleofjusticetowardsthe complainant.Hehasprovedcasebeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe cheques in question were issued by the appellantconvict against discharge of legally enforceable liability or debt. These cheques weredishonouredonpresentation.Despiteserviceoflegaldemand notice, the appellantconvict did not make good the cheque amounts. The appellantconvict failed to rebut the presumptions againsthim.Itisnotedthattheappellantconvictdidnotappearin thewitnessboxorleadanydefenceevidence.
28. Inviewofabovediscussion,theCourtdoesnotfind anyfaultwiththeimpugnedjudgment.Sofarasorderonsentence isconcerned,ldTrialCourthasalreadytakenaverylenientview.
29. Appealis,therefore,dismissed.
30. Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterduecompliance. PRONOUNCEDINTHEOPENCOURTONTHIS08thDAY OFMAY2017.
([ENTITY]) ASJ/SpecialJudge(PCAct) (CBI3),South,SaketCourt NewDelhi CriminalAppealno.54/16(8303/16)08.05.2017Pageno.18/18