9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntence awarded by the learned Additional Session Judge, i.e. rigorous imprisonment for three months to rigorous imprisonment for one year, is concerned the learned appellate Court has rightly appreciated the facts on record as the revisionist at the initial stage has admitted its liability and despite admitting the liability the revisionist kept on taking undue benefit of the legal process and harassed the respondent/complainant and backed out many times during the court proceedings too as per the order sheet of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 29.03.2012 and 15.05.2012. Consequently, the order on conviction dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the subsequent order of enhancement of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 22.12.2015 remains upheld and requires no interference by this Court. - CRL.REV.P. 853/2015 & CRL.M.(Bail) Nos. 8439/2015,1563/2016, CRL.M.A.No. 13241/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2016 - MR. I.S. MEHTA J. Petitioner/Revisionist Through: Mr. Arjun Dewan and Mr. A.K. Pathak, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State. Mr. Rajiv K. Garg and Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocates for R-2/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs and second cheque no. 246321 of ₹ 20 lakhs both dated 15.05.2011 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, to repay the said amount along with the interest at the rate of 36% p.a. to the respondent. 4. However, when both the aforementioned cheques were presented for encashment by the respondent, the same were dishonoured vide dishonour memo dated 19.05.2011 with the remarks Account Blocked . Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal demand notice dated 02.06.2011 which was duly served upon the revisionist. However, when the revisionist failed to make the payment despite expiry of 15 days notice period, the respondent was constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi on 12.07.2011. 5. On 14.09.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal and thereafter, vide judgment dated 04.09.2015 and order on sentence dated 07.09.2015 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment with the direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the point of due liability and, therefore, the case of the respondent no.2/complainant ipso facto goes and the Court below reached to the wrong conclusion. 10. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the decision of the cases- Charanjit Gauba vs. Arjun Lal Ahuja Anr. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8030, Vikal Business Corporation vs. Bishan Das Anr. reported in (2013) 201 DLT 189, Sam Daniel vs. John reported in 2007 2 BC 102, Anil Aggarwal vs. State Anr. Crl.L.P. 535/2013, decided on 12.08.2015, Delhi High Court, Vijayraj vs. Githeyon Raj Anr. reported in 2004 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 18 (Mad.), Col. S S Chaudhary vs. State Anr Crl. Rev.P. 666/2007 decided on 09.04.2009 and Shri Vinay Parulekar vs. Shri Pramod Meshram reported in 2008 Cri LJ 2405. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and submits that the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and reached to the right conclusion and there is no interference required by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isionist which finds mention in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the revisionist has not replied to the said notice. 17. In the instant case a complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant, i.e., M/s Sood Sood Builders Pvt. Ltd., under Section 138 read with Sections 140/141 of the NI Act which is Ex.CW1/A. As per the complaint, Mr. A.P. Sood, Managing Director of M/s Sood Sood Builders Pvt. Ltd. advanced an amount of ₹ 51 lakhs in favour of M/s Avenue Holding Pvt. Ltd., the accused company which is Ex. PW1/2, vide cheque no.299237 dated 14.06.2010 drawn on HSBC Bank. 18. The revisionist- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Managing Director of M/s Avenue Holding Pvt. Ltd., executed a promissory note of ₹ 51 lakhs which is Ex. PW1/3 on 14.06.2010 on the same date, in consideration thereof. 19. It seems that the revisionist again sought loan from the respondent/complainant of ₹ 19 lakhs through RTGS. The request to banker is dated 16.08.2016 which is Ex.PW1/4. The confirmation letter for the aforesaid amount of ₹ 19 lakhs is Ex.PW1/5 dated 16.08.2010. The promissory note qua against the loan amount of ₹ 19 lakhs is Ex.PW1/6 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied too, which is reproduced hereunder: Q6. Have you given any reply to the legal notice received by you? Ans. No, I have not given any reply. (underlining supplied) 27. The revisionist/DW1 further admits its liability through his conduct that the amount received was to be repaid, which is reproduced hereunder: Q7. You have appeared on 2.12.2011 before this court an agreed to settle by making the payment of aforesaid cheques and interest? Ans. Yes, I had agreed to settle on the moral grounds rather than on legal ground as the money was invested through my company. I had wished to reimburse the complainant even if the money was not forthcoming from the project. (underlining supplied) 28. It seems that the revisionist tried his best to run away from its liability by showing the cards of Share Purchase Agreement, i.e. Ex.CW1/D2, dated 22.06.2010 as well as profit sharing project. So far as the acting upon the agreement Ex.CW1/D2 is concerned, the same is not acted upon by the parties. The said admission by the revisionist/DW1 is reproduced hereunder: ...We have not issued any share to the complainant against the aforesaid money. (underlining suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
