Full Text
Translation output
•S/
% 03.06.2011
Present: Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. M.P. Singh, AFP for the State.
Mr. Ajit Nair, Adv. for respondent No. 2.
+ Crl. Rev.P. No. 246/2011 & Crl. M.B. No. 889/2011
•k
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence correct memo of parties has not been filed. Shri
Rajesh Goyal, who has been shown as respondent No. 2, had died during the pendency of proceedings, his wife Smt. Neena Goyal and two children Anshul Goyal and Akshit Goyal had been impleaded in the Trial Court as legal heirs of complainant Shri Rajesh Goyal.
Let amended memo of parties be placed on record during the course of the day.
Brief facts are that Rajesh Goyal had filed a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "NI Act)" against the petitioner before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi alleging therein that the petitioner had taken a loan of ^2 Lacs from him; in order to discharge the debt, petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 759059 dated 23rd October, 2003 for ^2,09,000/- in his favour, drawn on State Bank of India, Mansarovar Garden Branch, New Delhi. On presentation.
2011:DHC:19806 cheque was returned dishonored. The amount involved in the cheque was not paid despite service of legal demand notice dated
19th January, 2004. Thus, petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
After holding a full-fledged trial, Metropolitan Magistrate, vide
Present: Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. M.P. Singh, AFP for the State.
Mr. Ajit Nair, Adv. for respondent No. 2.
+ Crl. Rev.P. No. 246/2011 & Crl. M.B. No. 889/2011
•k
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence correct memo of parties has not been filed. Shri
Rajesh Goyal, who has been shown as respondent No. 2, had died during the pendency of proceedings, his wife Smt. Neena Goyal and two children Anshul Goyal and Akshit Goyal had been impleaded in the Trial Court as legal heirs of complainant Shri Rajesh Goyal.
Let amended memo of parties be placed on record during the course of the day.
Brief facts are that Rajesh Goyal had filed a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "NI Act)" against the petitioner before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi alleging therein that the petitioner had taken a loan of ^2 Lacs from him; in order to discharge the debt, petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 759059 dated 23rd October, 2003 for ^2,09,000/- in his favour, drawn on State Bank of India, Mansarovar Garden Branch, New Delhi. On presentation.
2011:DHC:19806 cheque was returned dishonored. The amount involved in the cheque was not paid despite service of legal demand notice dated
19th January, 2004. Thus, petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
After holding a full-fledged trial, Metropolitan Magistrate, vide
JUDGMENT
dated 14.12.2010, convicted the petitioner under Section
138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as also to pay compensation of ^3 lacs to the legal representatives of Shri Rajesh Goyal, i.e., respondent Nos.
2(a) to 2(c). Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2/11 before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi which has been dismissed by the order impugned in this petition. Conviction as well as sentences awarded to the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate have been maintained. That is how petitioner is before this Court.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Revision Petition is not pressed on merits against the conviction, however, he has prayed for leniency in the sentence. It is contended that petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family comprising of nine members; All his family members are dependent upon him; cheque amount could not be paid since petitioner had suffered huge financial loss as to the tune of ?2.5 crores. rr\
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, keeping in mind the financial crisis suffered by the petitioner, has no objection in case sentence as awarded by the Trial Court is modified. In the above facts, while upholding the conviction, sentence of imprisonment is done away with, inasmuch as, compensation amount is also reduced to ^2,66,000/-. Compensation ^ount has been paid today in Court through demand draft No. 002720 dated 3^^ June, 2011 for ^69000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension
Branch, New Delhi and demand draft No. 343532 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ?19,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, High Court Branch, New Delhi both in the name of Neena Goel; demand draft No. 002722 dated 3"^^ June, 2011 for ?71000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi and demand draft No. 343530 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ^19,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, High
Court Branch, New Delhi both in the name of Anshul Goel and
"demand draft No. 002721 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ^69000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi and demand draft No. 343531 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ^19,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, High Court Branch, New Delhi both in the name of
Akshit Goel.
.V
-4.
V
It has been brought to the notice of this court that surname of the respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(c) in the demand drafts has been spelled out as "Goel"; whereas in the amended memo of parties it has been spelled as "Goyal". This discrepancy shall not come in way of encashment of the demand drafts.
This Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
A.K. PATHAKrJT
June 03, 2011 rb
138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as also to pay compensation of ^3 lacs to the legal representatives of Shri Rajesh Goyal, i.e., respondent Nos.
2(a) to 2(c). Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2/11 before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi which has been dismissed by the order impugned in this petition. Conviction as well as sentences awarded to the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate have been maintained. That is how petitioner is before this Court.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Revision Petition is not pressed on merits against the conviction, however, he has prayed for leniency in the sentence. It is contended that petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family comprising of nine members; All his family members are dependent upon him; cheque amount could not be paid since petitioner had suffered huge financial loss as to the tune of ?2.5 crores. rr\
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, keeping in mind the financial crisis suffered by the petitioner, has no objection in case sentence as awarded by the Trial Court is modified. In the above facts, while upholding the conviction, sentence of imprisonment is done away with, inasmuch as, compensation amount is also reduced to ^2,66,000/-. Compensation ^ount has been paid today in Court through demand draft No. 002720 dated 3^^ June, 2011 for ^69000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension
Branch, New Delhi and demand draft No. 343532 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ?19,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, High Court Branch, New Delhi both in the name of Neena Goel; demand draft No. 002722 dated 3"^^ June, 2011 for ?71000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi and demand draft No. 343530 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ^19,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, High
Court Branch, New Delhi both in the name of Anshul Goel and
"demand draft No. 002721 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ^69000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi and demand draft No. 343531 dated 3rd June, 2011 for ^19,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, High Court Branch, New Delhi both in the name of
Akshit Goel.
.V
-4.
V
It has been brought to the notice of this court that surname of the respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(c) in the demand drafts has been spelled out as "Goel"; whereas in the amended memo of parties it has been spelled as "Goyal". This discrepancy shall not come in way of encashment of the demand drafts.
This Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
A.K. PATHAKrJT
June 03, 2011 rb