Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3776
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Charanjeet Gaba - Appellant
Versus
Arjun Lal Ahuja & Anr. - Resopndent
Crl.L.P. 96/2014
Decided On : 13-03-2015
For the Respondent:Mr. Naresh K Daksh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of probablising a defense in cheque bounce cases and the burden of proof on the complainant to establish alleged forgery and fabrication.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Bounce - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the legal principles related to cheque bounce cases. The interpretation of evidence, burden of proof, and the defense of share subscription money versus loan were key legal provisions influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/complainant alleged that the accused company failed to repay a loan amount and issued a cheque that bounced. The accused claimed that the amount was invested as share subscription money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the accused probablised the defense that the amount was not a loan but share subscription money. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the innocence of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the amount transferred, the validity of the cheque, and the burden of proof regarding the loan versus share subscription money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner needed to establish the alleged forgery and fabrication in independent proceedings and that the accused's defense provided a probable defense to the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the amount deposited by the accused at the first appellate stage was ordered to be released to the accused along with the accrued interest.
Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court):--
1. The present leave petition preferred under Section 378 Cr PC is directed against the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by Sh. J.R. Aryan, District & Sessions Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 13/2009, titled “Sh. Arjun Lal Ahuja & Anr. v. Sh. Charanjeet Gaba”.
2. By the impugned judgement, the appeal preferred by the respondent/accused had been allowed and the judgment of the learned MM Sh. Amit Kumar in Case No. 129/2004 rendered on the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) convicting the respondents, was set aside.
3. The case of the petitioner/complainant was that respondent No. 1 Arjun Lal Ahuja was the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 company M/s Cosmos Flex Pvt. Ltd. The accused was a known friend of the complainant. Sometime in August 1995, the accused approached the complainant and suggested that he joins the accused company as a director on allurement of good returns. The accused company proposed to start a business in products like polysters, polythene, printed laminated frames, flexible punching material etc. Believing the assurances of the accused, the complainant was inducted as a director in the company in September 1995. Another person named Kamal Arora was also taken as a director in the accused company.
4. The further case of the complainant was that in January 1996, the accused started asking the complainant for arranging finances for the accused company. Accordingly, the complainant arranged finances on interest basis between 07.02.1996 and 20.10.1997. These amounts were transferred through cheques aggregating to Rs. 12,05,000/. The complainant claimed that the amount was to carry interest @ 18% p.a. as per the agreement of the parties.
5. The complainant claimed that since he was already engaged in another business, the accused Arjun Lal Ahuja used to get papers signed from the complainant, and the complainant in good faith signed papers in blank and gave even blank cheques. The complainant claimed that disputes arose between the parties and with the intervention of others, it was decided in a meeting held on 14.03.1998 that the complainant would resign from directorship of the accused company and that the accused company would pay an amount of Rs. 16,20,000/- in full and final settlement of the complainants claim. A cheque dated 06.04.1998 was issued for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards part payment of the settlement, which was encahsed.
6. The complainant stated that the accused started avoiding making of payment of the balance amount of Rs. 15,90,000/-. However, subsequently, the cheque in question dated 23.10.1998 for Rs. 15,90,000/- was issued by the accused from the account of the accused company towards settlement of the petitioners claim. The said cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. Consequently, the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 30.10.1998 to the accused. Despite service of notice, payment was not made and, consequently, the complaint was preferred.
7. Upon framing of notice under Section 251 Cr PC on 22.07.1999, the accused pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial. Apart from examining two bank witnesses, the complainant examined himself as CW-1. He was also cross examined. In the statement of the accused made under Section 313 Cr PC, Arjun Lal Ahuja stated on his behalf and on behalf of the accused company that at no point of time any loan liability was incurred by the accused company, and there was no occasion to issue the cheque in question to discharge any such loan liability. The accused examined himself as DW-4, apart from examining the official witnesses like DW-1—the official from Registrar of Companies, DW-2 – the official from Punjab National Bank, and DW-3—an official from Haryana Financial Corporation, Gurgaon. Another official from Punjab National Bank was examined at the appellate stage as DW-5.
8. As noticed abo
