Delhi District Court Sanjay Sharms vs Lt. Col (Retd) Puran Lal on 30 October, 2018 1 IN THE COURT OF MS PRABH DEEP KAUR : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 02 : SOUTH : SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI SANJAY SHARMS VS LT. COL (RETD) PURAN LAL CC No. 468474/16 U/s 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT JUDGMENT (1) Serial number of the case : 468474/16 (2) Name of the complainant : Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Sh Shiyaram Sharma R/o B108, Ist Floor, Shivalik, New Delhi (3) Name of the accused, : Lt Col (Retd) Puran Lal parentage & address R/o WZ1674, IIIrd Floor, Nangal Rai, 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 : 24.11.2011 (8) Date on which reserved for judgment : 20.10.2018 (9) Date of Judgment : 30.10.2018 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1. The brief facts of this case as carved out from the complaint are that accused was running a security company namely M/s Satellite Security Services and was well known to the complainant. Accused borrowed an interest free loan of Rs05 lacs from the complainant in January 2011 with undertaking to repay the same in two installments within 06 months. After expiry of 06 Sanjay Sharma vs Lt. Col. (Retd) Puran Lal CC No. 468474/16 Page 1 of 13 2 months, accused issued a cheque bearing no. 350748 sated 21.09.2011 for a sum of Rs3.50 lacs drawn on Union Bank of India, branch Delhi Cantt., New Delhi in favour of the complainant towards part settlement of the loan which on presentation got dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 26.09.2011. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.10.2011 by way of regd. AD/UPC which was returned back unserved on 13.10.2011. Thereafter, again a legal notice dated 20.10.2011 was sent to the accused through regd. AD/UPC on 21.10.2011 which was deemed to be duly served upon accused despite that payment of the cheque in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the complaint. 2. In the presummoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence Ex.CW1/F was filed by the complainant. In his affidavit of evidence Ex.CW1/F, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents are original cheque in question Ex.CW1/A, its return memo Ex.CW1/B, copies of legal notices dated 12.10.2011 & 20.10.2011 Ex.CW1/C & D and postal receipt Ex.CW1/E. 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 24.01.2012. 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of summons and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 21.08.2013 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he had taken loan in the year 2007 from the complainant amounting to Rs3,50,000/ Sanjay Sharma vs Lt. Col. (Retd) Puran Lal CC No. 468474/16 Page 2 of 13 3 and cheque in question was issued as security. Thereafter, he had returned Rs03 lacs through cheque which was collected by Sh Pankaj Rawat, Senior Manager of the complainant. Cash was collected from his bank by Sh Pankaj Rawat and handed over to the complainant. The cheque in question remained in the custody of complainant despite his request to return the same various times. The cheque in question was misappropriated by the complainant in the year 2011. He had been falsely implicated in the present case and he had no liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. On the same day, defence plea of accused was also recorded separately in which accused reiterated the defence taken to the notice U/s 251 CrPC. 4. Thereafter, an application U/s 145(2) N I Act was filed by the accused to cross examine complainant and his witnes