A Delhi court in, Adie Broswon Breweries Pvt. Ltd v. M/s KLA Const. Technologies Private Ltd & Ors. acquitted the accused after accepting their reasoning and examining his emails that clearly showed that the cheque dishonored was actually given for security.
Facts
The complainant is a pvt. Ltd. company and has a business of sale and manufacture of beers. The accused were construction company and received a tender for complainant’s factory; thereafter, a work order was issued. Later owing to the default of the accused complainant canceled the contract. The accused contended that there was excess money lying with accused of past payment and in this regard accused issued 3 cheques worth Rs. 25 lacs each dated 07.10.2011 which were dishonored saying ‘account blocked’. The accused denied their liability upon being served a legal demand notice and hence after 15 days this complaint was made.
Defence of Accused
The accused, in reply to the legal notice, rejected any legally enforceable debt and contended that the complainant owed Rs. 1.77 crore. It was also claimed that it was after the arbitration notice that the complainant produced the cheque that was for security purposes. The complaint, they contended, was with malice
Arguments Advanced
The complainant argued that the accused failed to present enough evidence by the reverse onus clause(Section 118 and 139 NI Act). The complainant company had advanced mobilization amount to accused and all the defence witnesses have admitted the same in their cross-examination. The emails provided do not stand in the eyes of the law. The complainant also relied upon reconciliation of accounts in the meeting between the parties dated 22.11.2011.
The accused, on the other hand, said that the complaint filed was vague. They also pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies. The accused rejected the claims of the complainant w.r.t to the reconciliation of accounts and said that the complainant owed Rs.79,05,625/-. Further, the email was also following the law, they claimed.
Evidence and Court order
The accused reiterated that the complainant filed was vague. Further, he claimed the AR of the complainant was not competent to depose as a witness as he lacked personal knowledge. Also, the testimonies given by him were inconsistent. The accused again denied any legally enforceable debt. Most importantly, the complainant relied only on the ledger statement and stated that in light of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, a mere ledger statement only has corroborative value, but by itself, is not sufficient to fix liability. The accused claimed that a meeting took place between both the parties for reconciliation of account and the complainant had the original document of the same which was not produced despite a notice u/s 66 of the Indian Evidence Act. The complainant could not show the liability of Rs. 75 lac. The accused contended that the impugned cheques of Rs.75 Lakhs were given as security to the complainant as the same was a precondition for the release of payment by the complainant for the work done by the accused. The court also perused the emails, which clearly showed the conversation between the accused and complainant where the accused asked him not to produce the cheque and that the cheques will be replaced by a new instrument. The court finally accepted the reasoning of the accused and thereafter they were acquitted.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
