1. Complaint Case No. : 2778/10 2. Name of the complainant : M/s Leo Financial Services Ltd., 403­404, Chanana Building, 2214, Hardhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi­110005 3. Name of the accused and his : Sh. Suresh Kumar Ahuja parentage and residence Prop. S.K. Investments, 42, Shakti Nagar, Green Road, Rohtak­124001 4. Offence complained of or proved: U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 6. Final Order : Accused is acquitted 7. Date of Order : 28.02.2012 2 CC No.2778/10 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Delhi and that the company is engaged in the business of share brokers as a member of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE). Mr. Gulshan Arora, Director of the company is duly empowered and authorized to sign, verify and institute the present complaint against the accused vide Resolution dated 29.01.2002 by the Board of Directors of the complainant company i.e. CW1/A. 2. It is stated in the complaint that the accused Suresh Kumar Ahuja was a client of the complainant company and was doing business and transactions in shares with the complainant company in the name and style of M/s S.K. Investments since August 1998 and for that purpose the complainant had provided online trading terminals of the Exchange at the place of the accused. It is further stated that the accused had executed transactions of sale­purchase of shares on this terminal till the first week of December 2001. It is further stated that the accused was having his bank account no. 07670 in HDFC Bank, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi­110060 which was being used for making or receiving of amount from the complainant company by him. It is further stated that as per books of account in the ordinary course of business maintained by the complainant company, there was a debit balance of Rs.9,69,757.18 in the month of August 2001 to be payable by the accused. It is 3 CC No.2778/10 further stated that the accused visited the office of the complainant in the first week of September, 2001 when he was informed by the complainant company that the complainant company would not be able to continue further business with him until he clears his dues and at this point of time the accused issued 9 cheques bearing nos. 179400 to 179408 all dated 10.12.2001 and all drawn on HDFC Bank, 79, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi­110060 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ each which are Ex.CW1/C to Ex.CW1/K in discharge of his debt and liability and when the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same was returned back with remark 'Funds Insufficient' vide return memos dated 11.12.2001 which are Ex. CW1/ L & Ex.CW1/M1. It is further stated that inspite of repeated requests and reminders, the accused failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques and thereafter, A legal demand notice which is Ex. CW1/M2 dated 20.12.2001 was sent by the complainant company through its lawyer which was duly served on the accused vide Registered Post receipts dated 21.12.2001 & 2212.201 an the same are Ex.CW1/N and Ex.CW1/O and that the accused failed to make the payment within the statutory period of 15 days. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused had admitted the receipt of notice dated 20.12.2001 by his reply dated 04.01.2012 i.e. Ex.CW1/P whereby the accused tried to deny his liability on a purp