The complainant, as a sole proprietor, had the standing to file under Section 138 of the NI Act, as ownership and liabilities of a sole proprietorship are inseparable.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall dispose of both the captioned petitions, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances.

2. The petitioners herein have assailed their convictions for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter "NI Act"], in CT Case No. 1523/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Deepali Kundra & Ors.) and CT Case No. 1626/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Manila Kundra & Ors.).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent and the accused persons/petitioners shared prior business relations, pursuant to which the petitioners herein had purchased jewellery articles from the complainant in June 2014, for a total value exceeding Rs. 39 lakhs. It is alleged by the complainant that towards discharge of the said liability, the petitioner Manila Kundara had issued cheque no. 918605 for Rs. 23,03,143/- whereas the petitioner Deepali Kundara had issued cheque no. 918642 for Rs. 16,36,291/- both dated 27.06.2014, drawn on ICICI Bank, Rohini Branch, in favour of the complainant, which upon presentation were dishonoured with the remarks “Payment Stopped by the Drawer.” It is stated that despite service of a statutory legal notice upon the accused persons, calling upon them to discharge the outstanding liability within the prescribed period, no payment was made by them. Consequently, upon expiry of the stipulated period, the complainant was constrained to institute the present complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Trial Court"] convicted the petitioner Deepali Kundara, in CT Case No. 1523/2016, vide judgment dated 18.04.2023, and the petitioner Manila Kundara, in CT Case No. 1626/2016, vide judgment dated 27.04.2023, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. By way of separate orders passed in both these cases, the learned Trial Court on 20.07.2023, sentenced both the petitioners, individually, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, the petitioner Deepali Kundara was sentenced to payment of fine of Rs. 30,10,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid as fine and Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Similarly, the petitioner Manila Kundara was sentenced to payment of fine of Rs. 37,10,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid as fine and Rs. 37,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

5. Aggrieved by their conviction, the petitioners had filed appeals, and vide impugned similar judgments passed in CA No. 186/2023 (Deepali Kundara vs. The State & Anr.) and CA No. 187/2023 (Manali Kundara vs. The State & Anr.), the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Appellate Court"] was pleased to uphold the judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court are unsustainable in law and on facts, as the very foundation of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is defective. It is argued that the respondent lacked locus-standi to maintain the complaint, since the cheques in question were admittedly issued in the name of Yashman Diamonds, whereas the complaint was filed by the respondent in his individual capacity without establishing that he was the sole proprietor or otherwise entitled to receive the cheque amount in his own name. It is further argued t