2019 (9) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2019 and order on sentence dated 06.03.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 15367/2016 titled as 'M/S B.D. Jain Trading Company Versus Ajay Marwah' by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi. 2. The present petition is filed on the ground that the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein was summoned on the basis of affidavit dated 07.09.2013 (Ex.CW1/1) filed by the respondent No. 2. As per the affidavit, there is no ingredient / substance / material by which prima facie makes out a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Not only this, not even a single document which claimed to have been exhibited during trial is signed by any Judge. Moreover,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... supply of clothes, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no.356166 dated 28.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupee Five Lacs only) drawn on HDFC Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi to the respondent No. 2/ complainant in discharge of its liability. The balance amount of Rs.1375/- was treated as a discount. The said cheque was dishonoured with remarks 'funds insufficient' vide cheque Return Memo dated 01.07.2013. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/ complainant issued a legal notice dated 29.07.2013 to the petitioner through his counsel. Despite service of the legal notice, the petitioner neither gave reply nor paid the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the complainant presented the complaint before the trial Court and the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which, he took the same defence as was taken by him at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. He stated that that he had never purchased any cloth from the complainant and bills Ex. CW-l/A & Ex.CW-l/B are false documents. He preferred to lead defence evidence but he did not examine any witness to this effect. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has admitted the business transaction with the respondent No. 2 but he also alleged that he had not issued the cheques in question in favour of the respondent No. 2/ complainant. 9. He further stated that certain cheques, including the cheque in question, were misplaced by him and he had lodged police complaint in Police Station - Mukherjee Nagar. 10. However, no cogent evi....