Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. F55D, G.T.B. Enclave Delhi 110093 Through Sh. Karnal Sheel Maheshwari .........Respondent 2 :JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (accused before Ld. Trial Court) against the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2024 and order on sentence dated 04.05.2024 of Ld. MM02, NDD, Patiala House Courts, passed in complaint case u/s 138 NI Act. By way of the said impugned judgment, the appellant as Director of the accused company Oyster Constro Care Pvt. Ltd was convicted of offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act and sentenced to TRC and payment of fine of Rs.23,07,963/, payable as compensation to the respondent (complainant before Ld. Trial Court). For the sake of convenience, both parties shall be referred as their original position before the Ld. Trial Court, i.e. as complainant and accused. 2. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeal, in brief are as follows. The complainant presented two cheques both dated 16.11.2012 issued by accused company Oyster Constro Care Pvt. Ltd and signed by accused Director, which cheques were dishonored for the reason 'Exceeds Arrangement' vide memo dated 20.11.2012. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the accused dated 05.12.2012 sent on 06.12.2012. Thereafter, the accused failed to make payment to complainant and the complaint was filed before Ld. Trial Court. 3. After recording of presummoning evidence, the Ld. Trial Court summoned accused vide order dated 30.05.2015. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was given to accused Director on 26.09.2016, in which he pleaded not guilty and stated that he will disclose his defence in application u/s 145(2) NI Act. The complaint case was transferred on account of change in territorial jurisdiction during trial and the case was finally tried by Ld. 3 Trial Court having jurisdiction over PS Connaught Place. Subsequently, the application u/s 145(2) NI Act was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2019. AR of the complainant was crossexamined and discharged on 29.03.2022 and on the same day, complainant's evidence was closed. Statement of accused Director u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 28.01.2023 in which he declined to lead any defence evidence and stated that he had no liability towards the complainant and the cheques in question were given as blank security cheques to one company namely Rathi Rajasthan Steel Mills, but he never received any supply of material from the said company. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed and the impugned judgment and order on sentence were passed against the accused. 4. Now, the accused Director has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order on sentence on the following grounds: a) that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that witness of complainant admitted having no personal knowledge of the transaction or of any other relevant facts in his evidence. b) that the complaint itself was not maintainable due to technical defects in authorization of the concerned AR of the complainant company. c) that the accused never placed any purchase order upon the complainant but purchase orders were issued to one company namely Rathi Rajasthan Steel Mills Ltd. and no material was also supplied to the accused even by the said company. The invoice clearly shows that the consignee was Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and not the accused company. d) that the cheques in question were never issued to the complainant 4 and there were never any transactions between the complainant and accused. e) that the complainant failed to produce any VAT and CForm for the alleged transactions between the parties because there never was any such transaction. f) that the TIN number mentioned in the purchase orders and the invoice relied upon by the com