[CASE NUMBER] IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Criminal Appeal Nos. : 60/2017 & 70/2017 Under Section : 138 [ACT] CC No. : 48814/16 CNR Nos. : DLET-01-005091-2017 & DLET-01-005442-2017 In the matter of Criminal Appeal No.60/17 :- NARESH BANSAL Khasra No.81-82, New Mandoli Industrial Area, Hanuman Gali No.2. Mandoli, PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi-93. APPELLANT VERSUS [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. [ENTITY], R/o. Agrasen Apartment, Plot No.66, Flat No.KR-305, Patparganj, PS Mandavali, Delhi-110009 RESPONDENT Date of Institution : 24.04.2017 Date of Receiving : 25.04.2017 Date of reserving judgment : 16.05.2017 Date of pronouncement : 20.05.2017 Decision : Petition is dismissed. AND In the matter of [CASE NUMBER] :- [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. [ENTITY], R/o. Agrasen Apartment, Plot No.66, Flat No.KR-305, Patparganj, PS Mandavali, Delhi-110009 APPELLANT Page 1 of 18 ([ENTITY]) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] VERSUS NARESH BANSAL Khasra No.81-82, New Mandoli Industrial Area, Hanuman Gali No.2. Mandoli, PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi-93. RESPONDENT Date of Institution : 03.05.2017 Date of Receiving : 04.05.2017 Date of reserving judgment : 16.05.2017 Date of pronouncement : 20.05.2017 Decision : Petition is dismissed. JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment I shall decide two appeals, which have been preferred against the same order on sentence dated 28.03.2017, passed by trial court in a case titled as [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY], bearing [CASE NUMBER], under [SECTION] [ACT], PS Mandawali. Appellant Sh. [ENTITY] has also challenged judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2017, passed by trial court in aforesaid case. Vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2017, trial court convicted Sh. [ENTITY] for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT]. Vide impugned order on sentence, ld. trial court sentenced Mr. [ENTITY] to suffer simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.12 lakh with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Out of fine amount, Rs.9 lakh was directed to be given to the complainant Sh. [ENTITY] as compensation. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to Sh. [ENTITY] as complainant and Sh. [ENTITY] as accused.
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to these two appeals in hand are that Mr. [ENTITY]/complainant filed a complaint for Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] offence under [SECTION] [ACT] against Mr. [ENTITY] accused. Complainant alleged that he was running a manufacturing unit of Aluminum ingot and alloys at New Mandoli Industrial Area, Hanuman Gali No.2, Saboli, Mandoli, Delhi. Accused also dealt in manufacturing and importing Acrylic Sheets, Polycarbonate Sheets, Multi Wall, Cast Acrylic and he was running his firm from the same place. His firm was adjacent to the unit of complainant. In September-October, accused approached complainant with request to lend six lakh rupees (Rs.6 lakh) for business purposes.
Complainant lent this amount to accused on 01.10.2010. Complainant kept pursuing accused for return of this amount and accused gave him a cheque dated 15.11.2010 for Rs.6 lakh (bearing cheque no.848283). This cheque on presentation was returned unpaid vide memo dated 24.12.2010. Complainant approached accused and informed him about dishonor of cheque and thereafter, accused issued two cheques of Rs.3 lakh each bearing no.185038 and 185039, both dated 22.04.2011. Complainant again presented these cheques for encashment, but these two cheques were also returned unpaid. Cheque no.185038 was returned on account of "Drawer's signature differs" and cheque no.185039 was dishonored on account of "insufficient funds". Once again, complainant informed accused about dishonor of these two cheques and thereafter, accused again issued two cheques bearing no.209802 and 209803 for Rs.3 lakh each. Even these two cheques on their presentation were returned unpaid on account of "payment stopped by drawer". Once again, complainant approached accused and accused again issued two cheques dated 18.04.2012 of Rs.3 lakh each bearing no.033148 and 033150. Even these two cheques on their presentation were returned unpaid on account of "insufficient funds".
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] Again complainant approached accused for repayment of loan amount, but in vain and finally a legal notice dated 31.05.2012 was sent through registered post on the correct address of accused. Despite service of the notice, cheques' amount were not paid to complainant due to which present complaint was filed.
3. Accused was summoned by ld. MM and notice under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed for offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. At this stage, accused admitted that he had signed the cheques. He took plea that he had only signed and filled amount in figure. The cheques were given as advance for supply of goods by complainant, but complainant never supplied the goods. Therefore, nothing was due towards him and the cheques were misused by him. Accused denied having received legal notice dated 30.05.2012 and he pleaded not guilty. Complainant was examined as CW1, who had filed his affidavit reiterating and affirming same facts as stated in the complaint. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused. Sh. [ENTITY], an official from Central Bank of India, Anand Vihar Branch was examined as CW2, who brought certified copy of cheques bearing no.033148 and 033150, which were drawn on the account of accused.
4. Accused was further examined under [SECTION] [ACT] He once again stated that the cheques were given by him to complainant as advance. He had only signed those cheques and they were blank in respect of all other particulars. The cheques were given as complainant was to supply goods to him and complainant had stated to accused that he would fill the amount later on, after he supply the goods to him. His accounts were closed, therefore, he gave other cheques to complainant, but complainant did not return the earlier cheques and he did not ask for the same in good faith. Complainant Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] did not supply the goods, therefore, he did not have any liability towards him. He had not received the legal notice as well.
5. Accused also led his defence evidence. He summoned Sh. [ENTITY] from Jhilmil Head Post Office, Nand Nagri, who was examined as DW1. Mr. [ENTITY] reported that the record related to registered post bearing no.ARU0404387351M was weeded out. Accused summoned Smt. [ENTITY] (who was mother-in-law of complainant) and she was examined as DW2. Thereafter, he summoned Mr. [ENTITY], who was brother-in-law of complainant and he was examined as DW3. Accused examined himself as DW4. GROUNDS : -
6. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence accused has preferred his appeal on the following grounds :-
That the trial court failed to appreciate that complainant had filed false case and there was no liability to pay any loan amount to him.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that presumption under [SECTION] [ACT] was rebutted by accused, but complainant failed to adduce any evidence to establish the liability against the accused.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that legal notice was not served upon the accused, which was an important ingredient of [SECTION] [ACT].
That the trial court failed to appreciate that complainant deliberately sent legal notice on incorrect address as complainant claimed that he had sent legal notice at the factory address of the accused, while at the same time, he also claimed that same address belonged to him. Thus, complainant purportedly sent the Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] notice at his own address and accused did not come to know about the same.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that complainant did not place any delivery report or tracking report on the record and that the notice was sent from the post office of Varanasi, though complainant resided in Delhi.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that merely giving duly signed cheques did not create any liability and complainant had to prove that the amount claimed was actually due against accused. That the trial court failed to appreciate that cheques were issued as security and the cheques were presented to bank without prior information to the accused.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that complainant did not deliver any goods to the accused, against which the cheques were actually issued as security.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that membership number of CA was not provided in the ITR of mother-in-law of the complainant, which was very relevant document. The trial court failed to appreciate that this ITR was nothing else but a forged and fabricated document.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that complainant did not produce any witness to the transaction of money in cash nor did complainant obtain any promissory note or receipt from the accused.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that complainant did not furnish details of his PAN number, TIN number or VAT number and the complainant was not in position to give loan. That the trial court failed to appreciate that DW2 and DW3 were tutored by complainant and they could not explain that how the Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] amount was arranged. The amount was not accounted in the ITR of DW2 nor it was shown to be given as loan/ gift to complainant. That the trial court failed to appreciate that the cheques were filled by complainant himself and he did not explain that what was the period of loan and trial court failed to draw adverse inference against the complainant for not producing best evidence to establish his capacity to grant loan.
That the loan not being declared in income tax return was irrecoverable in view of [SECTION] of [ACT] and the judgment passed by Supreme Court in [ENTITY] case.
That the trial court failed to appreciate that criminal complaint was not signed by complainant.
7. Being aggrieved of the impugned order on sentence dated 28.03.2017, complainant has preferred his appeal on the following grounds :-
That the trial court has not granted adequate compensation to the complainant despite there being reasonable grounds and the appellant is entitled to at least Rs.6 lakh as compensation and simple interest there on at 9% per annum from the date of issuance of first cheque issued by the accused. ARGUMENTS :-
8. Ld. senior counsel for accused argued that the trial court could not appreciate the evidence properly. According to him, complainant did not prove any document to show that loan was given or to show the terms of loan. The complainant did not have the capacity to give loan of Rs.6 lakh and he improved in his case stating that he took this money from his mother-in-law. His mother-in-law was examined as DW2, who stated that she took money from her husband and son.
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] Son of DW2 was examined as DW3, who did not bring proper income tax return, which was proved as Ex.DW3/1 and Ex.DW3/2. But same could not be read in the evidence because they were not properly proved. Ld. senior counsel further argued that giving loan without executing any document was improbable and the mischievous act of complainant was reflected from the fact that legal notice was sent from Varanasi, though complainant and accused were neighbors. He further argued that DW4 was not cross-examined by complainant on the point of cheques given for the different purposes i.e. as advance amount. He concluded that the complainant had rebutted the presumptions under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], but the complainant could not prove his case beyond reasonable doubts.
9. Per contra, ld. counsel for complainant argued that the legal notice was presumed to be served upon accused by virtue of [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION] of [ACT]. Accused could not discharge that presumption and there is no dispute to the correctness of address of accused. He further referred to report of process server to mention the conduct of accused in not accepting the notice in routine manner. According to him there was no improvement in the testimony of CW1 because the answer regarding source of loan was given in his response to question put to this witness during his cross-examination and such answers cannot be termed as improvement. He also referred to orders passed by trial court on 30.07.2016 and 08.02.2017 when complainant had shown willingness to file statement of account for the periods 2012-2013 and when the trial court had observed that accused did not try to get DW2 and DW3 declared hostile nor did accused try to summon any witness from income tax department. Therefore, his application under [SECTION] [ACT] was dismissed vide which prayer was made to Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] summon official from income tax department with records in respect of M/s. [ENTITY]. Ld. counsel further submitted that in the cross- examination CW1 stated that he had borrowed Rs.5 lakh from his mother-in-law (DW2) and had contributed Rs.1 lakh himself. CW1 further stated that he had paid income tax and was having turn over in crore, which means that he was having capacity to pay the loan amount. He further submitted that accused examined DW2 and DW3, but did not declare them hostile, which meant that he admitted correctness of their testimonies. He further submitted that Supreme Court has over ruled judgment passed in [ENTITY]'s case in the case of [ENTITY] in respect of presumption under [SECTION] [ACT] and accused could not dislodge this presumption.
10.In rebuttal ld. senior counsel for complainant submitted that CW1 did not state about taking Rs.5 lakh from his mother-in-law and contributing Rs.1 lakh. He further submitted that since testimony of DW2 and DW3 were patently false, therefore, there was no need to declare them hostile as falsity was evident from their testimony.
11.Ld. counsel for accused relied upon certain judgments in support of his argument, which are as follows :-
Kumar Exports v. [ENTITY] Carpets, 2009 AIR (SC) 1518. [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT].
12.On the other hand, ld. counsel for complainant relied upon certain judgments in support of his argument, which are as follows :-
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC
[PRECEDENT].
Sawagat Ali Mullick v. Sk. Akbar Ali & Ors. AIR 2016 Calcutta
93. [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER].
[PRECEDENT]. [ENTITY] v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441.
Krishna P. Morajkr v. Joe Ferrao & Anr. 2014 (2) BomCR (Cri)
738. [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT].
[PRECEDENT].
[PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT].
[ENTITY] Shaikh v. Vijay D. Salvi, (2015) 9 SCC
622. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ARGUMENTS, CASE LAWS AS WELL AS FINDINGS :-
13.To start with analysis of appreciation of the evidence, arguments and case laws, it is relevant to mention certain admitted facts. It is admitted fact in this case that accused had given cheque number 848293 dated 15.11.2010 in the sum of Rs.6 lakh; cheques no.
185038 and 185039, dated 22.04.2011 in the sum of Rs.3 lakh each; cheques no.209802 and 209803, dated 15.11.2011 and 16.11.2011 in the sum of Rs.3 lakh each and cheques no.033148 and 033150, dated 18.04.2012 in the sum of Rs.3 lakh each, to the complainant. It is admitted fact that all these cheques were signed by complainant. It is also admitted fact that the cheques in question in this case i.e. cheques no.033148 and 033150 were also signed by the complainant.
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER]
14.The accused has taken defence that he had not taken any loan from the complainant and all these cheques were given to the complainant as advance/ security against delivery of certain goods by complainant to the accused. Being conscious of the onus cast upon him by virtue of [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], accused has taken plea that complainant was not having capacity to extend loan of Rs.6 lakh and the whole thrust of defence revolve around these two pleas.
15.Accused has also taken additional pleas regarding non delivery of legal notice upon him and regarding absence of signature of complainant in the complaint. It was argued on behalf of accused that delivery of notice upon accused was basic ingredient of offence under [SECTION] [ACT] and this ingredient was not satisfied.
16.The legal notice was exhibited as Ex.CW1/7 and complainant also proved the postal receipt, vide which this legal notice was sent to accused, as Ex.CW1/8. Complainant also proved the details of address of the firm of accused as appearing on the website of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi. The given address of accused was Khasra no.81-82, New Mandoli Industrial Area, Hanuman Gali No.2, Mandoli, Delhi. The legal notice was sent at this address. On perusal of evidence of this case, I find that accused has not disputed correctness of this particular address either in the cross- examination of complainant or in his own testimony as DW4. Plea was taken that Khasra number of complainant and accused was same and therefore, the legal notice was not served upon the accused. However, it is undisputed fact that both parties had their units in same locality having common Khasra number. It is worth to be seen that in the memo of the parties of complaint also, the same address was mentioned by the complainant. CW1 had stated that this was the address of factory of accused and this fact was not Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] challenged by the accused. Just because the post was sent from Varanasi, no adverse inference can be raised in respect of correctness of the given address of the accused. During arguments, ld. counsel for complainant had also referred to a report given by process server on the summons sent to accused at the same address, wherein it was reported that there was factory of accused and there was no fixed time for the accused being available in his factory. On a subsequent occasion process server was informed by some person claiming to be servant of accused that accused was not present and there was no fixed time for his presence at that place. Thus, it is well apparent that accused was having his factory at the given address and this registered post with legal notice was sent at that address. It is not necessary that the post should have been sent at the residential address of accused only. When this legal notice was sent at the correct address of his factory, then by virtue of presumption arising out of [SECTION] of [ACT] read with presumption arising out of [SECTION] [ACT], notice is to be presumed to be served there. These presumptions are rebuttable, however, accused did not rebut these presumptions.
17.In any case a three Judges bench of Supreme Court has already taken care of such plea of defence, in the judgment cited by the trial court i.e. in the case of [ENTITY] (supra). In this case, Supreme Court did observe that if the accused takes plea that the legal notice was not served upon him, then he can within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of complaint under [SECTION] [ACT], make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons and therefore, complaint is liable to be rejected. It is well apparent that no such payment was made by accused, even after his Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] appearance before ld. MM. Therefore, the defence of non receipt of the legal notice cannot be available to the accused.
18.The controversy regarding absence of signature of complainant in the complaint is also well taken care of by the trial court by relying upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. Hence, this plea of defence is also not available to the accused.
19.Now the question is that whether in the background of admitted situation that the cheque in question was signed by accused and given to the complainant by him, did accused rebut the presumption under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]?
20.Several case laws were cited before me so as to guide me in respect of law related to rebuttal of presumption under [SECTION] [ACT]. The settled principle of law emerging from the case laws is that the accused has to rebut the presumption that the cheque signed and given to the complainant was drawn for consideration and it was executed for discharge of a legally recoverable debt and liability. The initial burden cast upon the complainant is to show that the cheque in question was executed by the accused and thereafter, the onus shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumptions under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]. It is also well settled now that while discharging this onus, accused has to raise a probable defence on the parameters of preponderance of probability. Meaning thereby that the accused is not supposed to prove his plea beyond all reasonable doubts. Once accused is able to discharge this onus, then the onus again shifts back upon the complainant and the complainant is supposed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. It also emerges from the case laws that while discharging his onus to rebut the presumptions, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] accused may rely upon the cross-examination of the complainant and the circumstances arising out of his evidence, to show the existence of liability to be improbable and it is not necessary for the accused to lead his evidence in all the circumstances so as to rebut aforesaid presumptions.
21.In the present case since it is admitted fact that the cheques in question were signed by accused and were given to the complainant, it was for the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumptions. In his attempt to rebut these presumptions, accused took plea that the cheques in question along with other cheques given in the past, were actually given as an advance or security towards delivery of certain goods by the complainant to the accused. The trial court disbelieved this defence observing that if a person gives a cheque to another as advance and does not receive goods, but the said other person tries to encash the cheque, it would be unbelievable that the intention behind act of encashment of such cheques is not questioned. Ld. MM further observed that any sane person will ask the other as to why did he try to encash the chque, when no goods were supplied. I am in agreement with such reasoning given by ld. MM.
22.Prior to handing over two cheques in question, complainant had handed over 5 cheques to the complainant. During his cross- examination by ld. counsel for complainant, accused deposed that he did not know about dishonor of cheque dated 15.11.2010 in the sum of Rs.6 lakh and he did not know that the same was presented before the bank or not. In respect of the cheques dated 15.11.2011 and 16.11.2011, though accused himself stated that payment of entire cheque book was stopped by him. It is worth to mention here that the cheques dated 15.11.2011 and 16.11.2011 were returned unpaid on account of payment stopped by drawer. Accused did not explain that Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] under what circumstances, he issued cheques in question on 18.04.2012 in favour of complainant, despite the fact that in the past he had issued two cheques dated 15.11.2011 and 16.11.2011 and have given instructions to his bank to stop the payment. This is not a normal course of action on the part of a prudent person to stop payment of some cheques on one hand by realising that the cheques could be presented for encashment and even thereafter, issuing fresh cheques, that too for the same amount, subsequently in favour of same person. It cannot be matter of coincidence that right from the beginning the total amount of cheques being given to the complainant at different point of time was Rs.6 lakh only. It is not believable that even the cost of any material alleged to be supplied by complainant was expected to remain constant throughout the period starting from 15.11.2010 to 18.04.2012.
23.It is admitted case that there was no written agreement for the alleged delivery of goods by the complainant. It is interesting to see that though accused himself had been giving cheques for huge sum of Rs.6 lakh without executing any written agreement with regard to the purpose, but in the arguments accused alleged that complainant did not produce any document to show that he had given loan. If no document was required to be executed for placing order of certain articles or for any agreement to supply certain articles, then there was no such mandatory requirement to execute any written document while giving loan as well. Therefore, the argument of accused that complainant did not prove any document in support of giving loan or that he did not produce any books of account or pronote, is not sustainable. Such requirements are seen as per the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and therefore, the judgments to the effect that complainant should have produced Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] books of account etc. would be good for the peculiar facts and circumstances involved therein only.
24.In the present case, the plea of accused so as to justify giving several number of cheques for the same amount to the complainant is not believable. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused was able to project a probable defence in order to rebut the presumptions under [SECTION] [ACT].
25.Accused has tried hard to question the capacity of complainant to give the loan in question. Complainant stated this amount was given after making arrangement from his mother-in-law (DW3). Accused himself summoned mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant and examined them as his witness. However, he did not dispute the correctness of their statement given during their examination in chief. I find force in the argument of counsel for the complainant that in such situation the accused should have been declared. DW2 and DW3 hostile and should have cross-examined them. For want of any cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 in respect of the facts deposed by them, there did not remain any challenge to the facts stated by them. DW2 and DW3 in fact supported the plea of complainant that an amount of Rs.5 lakh was sent by DW2 through DW3. In these circumstances, the argument of accused that testimony of DW2 and DW3 were patently false and hence, they were not required to be declared hostile, cannot be accepted.
26.The fact remains that accused himself could not justify giving several numbers of cheques for the same amount to the complainant time and again, which were being presented for encashment, but were not honored. It cannot be assumed that without having any liability the accused had been issuing cheques for same amount to the Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] complainant time and again without being aware that cheques were being dishonored and without their being any liability to make payment of amount of dishonored chques.
27.In view of my foregoing discussions and findings, I find that the trial court had reached a correct finding on the basis of legal and logical reasoning and no fault with the same can be found by this court. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction is sustained.
28.The next point of consideration relates to order on sentence. Since the accused concentrated on challenging the judgment of conviction, therefore, there was no particular plea in respect of order on sentence. However, it can be assumed that accused would be seeking the lenient sentence. On the other hand, complainant filed appeal to seek enhancement of compensation stating that he did not receive interest at the rate of 9% from the date of first cheque issued to him by the accused. The trial court granted compensation of Rs.9 lakh to the complainant on the basis of calculation of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cheques in question i.e. the chques on the basis of which present case was filed. I do not find any infirmity in such order passed by ld. MM for the reasons that while granting compensation in the case under [SECTION] [ACT], the court is to look into the chques involved for the purpose of case in hand, rather than the cheques which were given in the past for the same transaction. The observations of Supreme Court passed in [ENTITY] (supra) do not make out a case in favour of complainant to seek compensation on the basis of date of first cheque issued to him. The observations made therein were based on the cheque in question and grant of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Same is already done by ld. MM. In fact compensation was granted more than accumulated interest at the rate 9% per annum.
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] Ld. MM had sentenced accused to simple imprisonment for one year and imposed fine of Rs.12 lakh. He has struck a balance between the cause of victim/ complainant and need to reimburse the State for utilization of judicial hours and the infrastructure of the State in deciding such cases. Sentence of simple imprisonment for one year is justified in view of the facts that accused, instead of coming before the court with clean hands, took frivolous plea. This kind of offence do affect negotiability of cheque and create a kind of insecurity in the society by adversely affecting the credibility of negotiable instruments. Therefore, some sort of deterrent effect has to be created by imposing sufficient punishment. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order on sentence and accordingly same is also sustained. Both the appeals are hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court ([ENTITY]) today on 20.05.2017 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 18 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi