Delhi District Court Lalit Singh vs Dinesh Raj Sharma on 9 October, 2018 1 IN THE COURT OF MS PRABH DEEP KAUR : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 02 : SOUTH : SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI LALIT SINGH VS DINESH RAJ SHARMA CC No. 468546/2016 U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT JUDGMENT (1) Serial number of the case : 468546/2016 (2) Name of the complainant : Lalit Singh S/o Sh Braham Singh R/o House No. 204, Village Asola, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi110074 (3) Name of the accused, : Dinesh Raj Sharma parentage & address R/o Sh Mahesh Chand Sharma R/o House No. 58, Village Asola Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi (4) Offence complained of or proved : 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (5) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty (6) Final Order : ACQUITTED (7) Date of Institution : 14.11.2011 (8) Date on which reserved for judgment : 05.09.2018 (9) Date of Judgment : 09.10.2018 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1. The brief facts of this case as carved out from the complaint are Lalit Singh vs Dinesh Raj Sharma CC No. 468546/2016 Page 1 of 14 2 that accused works for levelling and excavation of land as well as for removal of waste/debris under the name & style of "DRS Constructions". Accused had undertaken job work of M/s Era Infra Engg. Ltd to level & excavate the land and remove the waste/debris for and on behalf of its sub contractor at its site at Suchna Bhawan, New Delhi for which job the accused engaged the complainant w.e.f. October 2010 to December 2010. In order to pay the outstanding dues of complainant, accused issued cheques bearing nos. 000028 & 000029 each for a sum of Rs1,17,000/ both dated 24.06.2011 drawn on Kotak Mahindra bank, branch Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter "the cheques in question") which on presentation got dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 26.09.2011. Thereafter, a legal demand notice dated 08.10.2011 was sent to the accused through regd. AD post and despite that payment of the cheques in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the instant complaint. 2. In the presummoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence ExCW1/G was filed by the complainant. In his affidavit of evidence ExCW1/G, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents which are original cheques in question Ex.CW1/A & B, their return memo dated 26.09.2011 Ex.CW1/C, office copy of legal notice dated 08.10.2011 Ex.CW1/D, postal receipt ExCW1/E and the complaint ExCW1/F. After closure of presummoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 CrPC was passed against the accused vide order dated 16.11.2011. Lalit Singh vs Dinesh Raj Sharma CC No. 468546/2016 Page 2 of 14 3 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of BWs and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 29.07.2013 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he had not given the cheques in question to the complainant for any legal debt due towards him. He had handed over the said cheques to the complainant with respect to separate land deal which was entered into with him, the complainant and one Ms Kamna Chauhan. Accused stated that he had not hired the complainant for any excavation work. No such transaction had taken place and he had no liability against cheques in question. 4. Thereafter, considering the defence of accused taken to notice U/s 251 CrPC, on oral request of accused, accused was given opportunity to cross examine complainant and his witnesses. 5. Complainant examined himself as CW1, Subhash as CW2, Nasir Ali as CW3 and Yogesh Sharma Senior Executive, JMC Project India Ltd as CW4 in his evidence. Complainant was