Full Text
Translation output
$--20 & 21 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 314/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos.8623/2013 &
CrL
M.A. No. 8624/2013 & CrL
M.A. No.1117/2013
SHRUTI PAPER CO. (PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM) THR. ITS
PROPRIETOR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manju Kansal, wife ofproprietor ofpetitioner-firm
CRL.REV.P. 314/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos.8623/2013 &
CrL
M.A. No. 8624/2013 & CrL
M.A. No.1117/2013
SHRUTI PAPER CO. (PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM) THR. ITS
PROPRIETOR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manju Kansal, wife ofproprietor ofpetitioner-firm
VERSUS
INDIA BULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Respondent
Through: Mr. Amn Kumar, Authorized Representative
Through: Mr. Amn Kumar, Authorized Representative
CRL.REV.P. 316/2013 & Crl.
M.A. No. 8660/2013 &
. Crl.M.A. No.8660/2013 & Crl.
M.A. No. 8686/2013
SHRUTI PAPER CO. (PROPRITORSHIP FIRM) THR. ITS.
PROPRIETOR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manju Kansal, wife ofproprietor ofpetitioner-firm .
M.A. No. 8660/2013 &
. Crl.M.A. No.8660/2013 & Crl.
M.A. No. 8686/2013
SHRUTI PAPER CO. (PROPRITORSHIP FIRM) THR. ITS.
PROPRIETOR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manju Kansal, wife ofproprietor ofpetitioner-firm .
VERSUS
INDUABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Authorized Representative
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Authorized Representative
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
27.05.2013 The above captioned two petitions arise out of a business loan transaction between the parties and since not only the parties are common in both these matters but even dishonouring of two cheques of ?14,50,000/-
Crl Rev. P. No. 314/2013 Page 1 Crl. Rev. P. No. 316/2013 .
2013:DHC:8500 and ?53,152/- is related tosingle business loan transaction and so, both these petitions assailing petitioner's conviction and sentence under complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
In the above captioned first petition, the dishonoured cheque was of
?14,50,000/- whereas in the above captioned second petition, the dishonoured cheque was of?53,152/-. Impugned
27.05.2013 The above captioned two petitions arise out of a business loan transaction between the parties and since not only the parties are common in both these matters but even dishonouring of two cheques of ?14,50,000/-
Crl Rev. P. No. 314/2013 Page 1 Crl. Rev. P. No. 316/2013 .
2013:DHC:8500 and ?53,152/- is related tosingle business loan transaction and so, both these petitions assailing petitioner's conviction and sentence under complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
In the above captioned first petition, the dishonoured cheque was of
?14,50,000/- whereas in the above captioned second petition, the dishonoured cheque was of?53,152/-. Impugned
ORDER
of2"'' May, 2013 upholds petitioner's simple imprisonment of six months in the above captioned first petition and simple imprisonment of one month in the above captioned second petition with fine / compensation of ?6,00,000/- and
?55,000/- respectively.
Ms. Manju Kansal, wife of proprietor of petitioner-firm appears in person and draws attention ofthis Court to the Settlement of 17"' May, 2013
(Annexure P-4) and submits that petitioner is already behind bars for a period of more than twenty days and the Settlement (Annexure P-4) has been acted upon and so, sentence imposed upon petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him, as shehas instructions from petitioner-husband to submit that in case any of the post dated cheques of the settled amount get dishonoured, then petitioner is ready to undergo the substantive sentence awarded to him by this Court.
Upon notice, Mr. Arun Kumar, Authorized Representative of respondent-company appears and has shown his original Power ofAttorney of2°'' April, 2013 in his favour and has placed on records its copy, which is directed to be taken on record. He has also placed on record his affidavit confirming factum of settlement arrived at with petitioner-firm and submits that in terms thereof, asum of?5,00,000/- [^2,00,000/- by way ofabanker's
Crl Rev. P. No. 314/2013 Crl. Rev. P.No. 316/2013 cheque and ? 2,00,000/- and ?1,00,000/- by way of two demand drafts] has been already received by respondent-company and in view of four post dated cheques of ?2,00,000/- each handed over by petitioner-firm to respondent - company, the sentence imposed upon petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to furnishing an undertaking by petitioner that in the event of dishonouring of these post dated cheques, petitioner will undergo the substantive sentence so indicated by this Court.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, I find no infirmity in it.
However, keeping in view the Settlement (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him with the rider that in case any of the four post dated cheques are dishonoured, then petitioner shall be made to undergo simple imprisonment of six months each. Petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Upon release from jail, petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the trial court within a week that the post dated cheques in question will be honoured and the trial court shall ensure that the post dated cheques are honoured and in case of any single default, petitioner be made to undergo substantive sentence, as indicated above.
With aforesaid modification, above captioned petitions and applications are disposed of
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to petitioner's wife.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2013 r Crl. Rev. P. No. 314/2013 Page 3
CrI. Rev. P. No. 316/2013
?55,000/- respectively.
Ms. Manju Kansal, wife of proprietor of petitioner-firm appears in person and draws attention ofthis Court to the Settlement of 17"' May, 2013
(Annexure P-4) and submits that petitioner is already behind bars for a period of more than twenty days and the Settlement (Annexure P-4) has been acted upon and so, sentence imposed upon petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him, as shehas instructions from petitioner-husband to submit that in case any of the post dated cheques of the settled amount get dishonoured, then petitioner is ready to undergo the substantive sentence awarded to him by this Court.
Upon notice, Mr. Arun Kumar, Authorized Representative of respondent-company appears and has shown his original Power ofAttorney of2°'' April, 2013 in his favour and has placed on records its copy, which is directed to be taken on record. He has also placed on record his affidavit confirming factum of settlement arrived at with petitioner-firm and submits that in terms thereof, asum of?5,00,000/- [^2,00,000/- by way ofabanker's
Crl Rev. P. No. 314/2013 Crl. Rev. P.No. 316/2013 cheque and ? 2,00,000/- and ?1,00,000/- by way of two demand drafts] has been already received by respondent-company and in view of four post dated cheques of ?2,00,000/- each handed over by petitioner-firm to respondent - company, the sentence imposed upon petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to furnishing an undertaking by petitioner that in the event of dishonouring of these post dated cheques, petitioner will undergo the substantive sentence so indicated by this Court.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, I find no infirmity in it.
However, keeping in view the Settlement (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him with the rider that in case any of the four post dated cheques are dishonoured, then petitioner shall be made to undergo simple imprisonment of six months each. Petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Upon release from jail, petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the trial court within a week that the post dated cheques in question will be honoured and the trial court shall ensure that the post dated cheques are honoured and in case of any single default, petitioner be made to undergo substantive sentence, as indicated above.
With aforesaid modification, above captioned petitions and applications are disposed of
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to petitioner's wife.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2013 r Crl. Rev. P. No. 314/2013 Page 3
CrI. Rev. P. No. 316/2013