Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. JAYANTI CHANDER,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT – 03.
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURT, DELHI
JUDGMENT
1 Date of Institution of
complaint
: 07.05.2024
2 Name & Address of
Complainant
: M/S Jai Enterprises,
through its proprietor Sh. Himanshu
Aggarwal,
304HB Twin, Towers No. A-234, Netaji
Subhash place, Pitampura Delhi -110034
Also at: -
khasra no. 59/2, 36/23/2 &59/4/ 1, Near Shri
Krishan Dharma Kanta, village Mundka ,
Delhi.
3 Name & Address of
Accused
: 1. M/S Shri Bala Sundar Polymers,
2. Sh. Neeraj Jain
Partner, M/S Shri Bala Sundar Polymers
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, aged about 45 years,
R/o Purani Anaj Mandi, Gohana,
Haryana-131301
4 Offence complained of
Act
: Section 138 r/w142, Negotiable Instruments
Act 1881 r/o Section 141 N.I. Act.
5 Plea of guilt : Pleaded guilty and does not claim trial
6 Reserved for orders : 17.02.2025
7 Decision Qua Accused : Convicted
8 Date of judgment : February 17, 2025
[CC No. 1676/2024; M/S Jai Enterprises Vs. M/S Shri Bala Sundar Polymers, page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Case of the complainant is that the complainant is doing the business
under the name and style of M/S Jai Enterprises. Complainant avers that upon
the request of the accused the complainant supplied calcium Carbonate to the
accused and the total outstanding against the accused persons is Rs.20,98,192/-.
The Complaint states that to discharge part liability, the accused issued four
cheques all drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Gohana, Haryan which were returned
vide returning memos all dated 21.02.2024 as follows: -
Sl. No. Cheque No. Date Amount Reason for return
1 100111 18/12/2023 Rs.3,00,000/- Funds Insufficient
2 100112 18/01/2024 Rs.3,00,000/- Funds Insufficient
3 100113 18/02/2024 Rs.3,00,000/- Funds Insufficient
4 017629 19/02/2024 Rs.3,00,000/- Exceeds Arrangement
2. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 16.03.2024 to
the accused u/s 138 NI Act. Calling on his upon to make payment within 15
days of receipt of notice. However, accused failed to make the payment.
Therefore, complainant filed the present complaint u/s 138 NI Act.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
3. Accused was summoned vide summoning order dated 07.05.2024. On
summon, accused entered his appearance and it was duly ensured that copy of
complaint along with relevant documents have been supplied to the accused.
Thereafter, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the
[CC No. 1676/2024; M/S Jai Enterprises Vs. M/S Shri Bala Sundar Polymers, page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
accused today i.e. on 17.02.2024 to which he pleaded guilty and stated the
following:-
“I plead guilty to the offence u/s 138 NI Act and do not
claim trial”.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
4. I have heard the parties and perused the record.
5. Before adverting to the facts of the instant complaint, it is pertinent to
reproduce Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. Section 118 (a) reads as:-
“Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall
be made: —……that every negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when
it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.”
Further, Section 139 reads as under:
“It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to
in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt
or othis liability.”
6. As per Section 118 (a) of the NI Act, a presumption i s d r a w n in
favour of complainant that the instrument i.e. t h e f o u r cheques in dispute
were issued for consideration and under Section 139 of the Act it is presumed
that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or this liability.
7. Section 252, Cr.P.C. is also pertinent to be examined at this stage. Section
252 states:-
[CC No. 1676/2024; M/S Jai Enterprises Vs. M/S Shri Bala Sundar Polymers, page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
“
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the
plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and
may, in his discretion convict him thereon”.
8. It is pertinent to note that Section 141 of the Act envisages that persons
who were incharge and were responsible to the company (partnership firm) for
the conduct of a business of the company (partnership firm) shall be deemed to
be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In
the present case, the accused no.1 is a partnership frirm represented by the
accused no.2 who is responsible for the conduct of business of the accused no.1
firm.
9. Perusal of the record shows that complainant has also annexed with the
complaint original cheques, return memos and legal notice u/s. 138 NI Act,
speed post receipt and tracking report of the legal notice. Perusal of the tracking
report shows that notice has been duly served upon the accused. The Court finds
that accused has pleaded guilty voluntarily without any undue influence,
coercion or pressure.
10. In view of the plea of guilt of the accused, settled law and evidence of
complainant, the accused no.1 M/S Shri Bala Sundar and the signatory/partner
of the accused no.1. i.e. accused no.2 namely Sh. Neeraj Jain S/o Sh. Ashok
Kumar stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
11. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost
Pronounced in Open Court on 17.02.2025.
(JAYANTI CHANDER)
(JMFC- NI Act (Digital)- 03,
North West, Rohini Court, Delhi)
[CC No. 1676/2024; M/S Jai Enterprises Vs. M/S Shri Bala Sundar Polymers, page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --