TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o pay the interest @5% per month. Eventually, the Respondent/Complainant, Mr. Vikas Sehrawat, gave a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the month of August, 2019 on an interest @2% per month. He was assured that the Petitioner, Ms. Bharti Sahni shall pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards interest and that the entire amount shall be paid by August, 2020. She then gave a blank signed cheque No.005148 drawn on HDFC Bank, Community Centre, Rohini Branch, Delhi for Rs. 6,00,000/-. 3. The Complainant, Sh. Vikas Sehrawat, further asserted that despite his repeated requests, the Petitioner, Smt. Bharti Sahni kept seeking more time and eventually told him to present the cheque in the bank for encashment. On her assurance, the Complainant, Sh. Vikas Sehrawat presented the cheque on 29.09.2020, after filling the details of his name in the said cheque in his Bank i.e. ICICI, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi, but the cheque was dishonoured for 'Funds Insufficient'. 4. He contacted the Petitioner, Smt. Bharti Sahni but she told him to present the cheque again in second week of October, 2020 but on representation, it was again dishonoured for the "Funds Insufficient" vide return Memo dated 13.10.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t dated 06.02.2025, found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed the same. 10. Aggrieved by the said Order of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate upheld by the Ld. ASJ dated 06.02.2025, the present Revision Petition has been filed. Essentially, the grounds of challenge are firstly, that she has no liability towards the Complainant, Sh. Vikas Sehrawat. Secondly, CW-2, Mr. Vaibhav Vasudeva has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not in the business of Money Lending and therefore, the money advanced on interest, without license is not covered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as held by the Bombay High Court in Mrs. Monica Sunit Ujjain vs. Sanchu M Menon, Crl. Rev. Appl. 494/2015. There is no finding of the Courts in the impugned Orders in this respect. It is further asserted that any loan transaction without license and secured by a post-dated cheque, is a cognizable offence about which nothing has been stated by the either the Ld. MM or Ld. ASJ. 11. The third ground is that the burden to prove that the cheque was given to the Complainant in discharge of legal liability, was upon him which he has failed to discharge. He failed to give the date when the alleged loan was advan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rebutted, the onus would shift on the Complainant to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was in fact issued in discharge of an existing debt or liability. 17. It is also contended that she has not been convicted in any other case and even if she was the previous conviction in other case, it cannot be a relevant factor for holding the Petitioner, Smt. Bharti Sahni guilty in the present case. 18. The Petitioner has also challenged the imposition of fine of Rs.10,65,000/- vide the Order on Sentence, as being beyond the jurisdiction of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in terms of Section 29(2) Cr.P.C., which provides that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class, cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs. 10,000/-. 19. Further, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that independent of the Sentence of one month, fine shall be recoverable under Section 421 Cr.P.C. It is claimed that the benefit of Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') is available to the Petitioner, as per law and the fine exceeding the limit of Rs.10,000/-, is liable to be set-aside. 20. It is, therefore, submitted that the Judgment and Sentenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factum of taking of loan is established, but she has failed to adduce any evidence of repayment of loan to any person. It is thus, established that the loan amount was not returned by her. Aside from a bald assertion that all the dues were paid to CW-2, no specifics of when, where and in what manner, she had allegedly cleared her dues. Significantly, CW-2 was never given any such suggestion of clearing of the dues. 27. Though, the Petitioner has asserted that it was a proxy litigation undertaken by Mr. Vaibhav Vasudeva, but in the light of the testimony that Mr. Vaibhav Vasudeva had in fact, taken the loan from the Complainant for and on behalf of the Petitioner. 28. It is also significant to note that it had been a defence of the Petitioner that the cheque had her signatures and has been issued by her, but was misused by CW-2. If so was the case, she like any prudent person, she would have taken some steps to get the payment against the cheque stopped. 29. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly concluded not only the factum of giving the loan by the Complainant to the Petitioner, but also that it was not returned, has been fully established. 30. One other c....