AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rendered by Sh. Naresh Kumar Malhotra, ASJ-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA no.28/2014 and Old No.48/2013 titled M/s Taurian Overseass v. M/s Soni Impex, whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent/accused has been allowed and, simultaneously, the appeal preferred by Soni Impex being CA No.28/2014 and Old No.52/2013 (against the order on sentence) was dismissed. 4. The complainant had preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) against the accused. The case of the complainant was that Sh. Rakesh Arora was its proprietor, who was dealing in sale of general items such as computers, spare parts, mechanical spare parts, handicrafts, home furnishing, etc. and other electronic items. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount of the complainant. The accused claimed that he was only an employee of Soni Impex receiving salary from the complainant, as salary and commission. The accused claimed that the complainant himself was maintaining the account of Taurian Overseas while the accused was out of India. He further claimed that like Taurian Overseas, another sham firm viz. Xeon Infotech had been created and was being operated by the complainant. That firm was in the name of the complainant's father. 6. Evidence was led on both sides. By the judgment dated 10.05.2013 passed in the said complaint, the accused was convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. By order of sentence dated 15.05.2013, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprison....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also stated that payment received from the client Gratifi Infotech having their account No.0922050002490 in HDFC bank was received in the account of M/s Xeon Infotech on 06.03.2003 amounting to Rs. 2 lac, same was transferred as it is to the account of M/s Taurian Overseas, HDFC bank account No.129000007182 on 07.03.2003 and on 07.03.2003 the same was transferred in the account of M/s Soni Impex having account no.1292000001283. This witness also stated that there are almost every entry which reflects the amount received from the customer travelled back to the complainant. The document Ex. AW-1/4(i) clearly indicates that amount of Rs. 2 lacs transferred to M/s Taurian Overseas and from M/s Taurian Overseas the same was transferred in the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid as salary for the period April, 2000 to March, 2001. DW-1 has also placed on record certificate dated 31.12.2001, which is proved on record as Ex. AW-1/3 which shows that a sum of Rs. 1,58,400/- was given to DW-1 as salary for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2001. During cross examination complainant CW-1 has stated that he do not remember whether he had given any pay slip or commission certificate to accused in the year 1999-2000. Thus, the complainant has not denied about issuance of pay slip or commission to the appellant/accused. Thus, it strengthens the version of the DW-1 that he was an employee of M/s Soni Impex and M/s Taurian Overseas was created as a dummy firm so that suppressed value of goods can be i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the defence of the accused had been taken note of by the learned Magistrate on internal page 9 of the said judgment. He also referred to the order of sentence where the contentions of the accused on merits have been recorded. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that apart from recording some of the aspects of the defence set up by the accused, there is no discussion of the same. The accused was convicted without dealing with his defence. Merely because, while dealing with the aspect of sentence, some of the submissions on merits have again been recorded is neither here, nor there. Having convicted the accused, there was no purpose for discussing the merits of the defence of the accused (for the first time) while ....