* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 190/2011
Date of Decision : 21.09.2011
FIROJ KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. G. S. Aneja, Advocate
versus
MOHD.TAYYAB & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. This is a leave to appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the respondents herein for an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellant/complainant is that the respondents had CRL.L.P. No.190/2011 1|6 taken a friendly loan of Rs.1,10,000/- from the appellant/complainant in the first week of August, 2006 for his business purposes and in order to repay the said loan he had issued a cheque bearing no.332936 dated 10.11.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Chawri Bazar, Delhi in favour of the appellant/complainant. On presentation of the said cheque to the banker of the respondents/accused, the same was dishonoured on 24.03.2007 on the ground of insufficiency of funds. A demand notice dated 01.04.2007 was issued by registered AD as well as UPC to the respondents and since, they failed to make a payment within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice, the complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant.
3. The respondent took the stand that no transaction worth lacs had taken place between the appellant/complainant and respondent. It was stated that the cheque which issued was only for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of chit fund which was being CRL.L.P. No.190/2011 2|6 run by the appellant/complainant. In this regard, the respondents/accused contended that the cheque no. 332921 dated 15.04.2005, cheque no. 332922 dated 16.05.2005, cheque no. 332923 dated 14.06.2005 and cheque no. 332931 dated 16.09.2005 were all for sum of Rs.10,000/- and which would clearly shows that even the cheque no.332936 dated 10.11.2006, which is the cheque in question was also issued for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in which figure „1‟ on the cheque was inserted by the petitioner/complainant.
4. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the parties, statement of accused and defence witnesses and thereafter, discussed the case law and came to the conclusion that the presumption of dishonour of the cheque in question having been issued for a discharge of debt or existing liability was dislodged by the respondent/accused by creating hole in the case of the appellant/complainant by showing that cheques preceding and succeeding and issued around the time in favour of the appellant/complainant were only for a CRL.L.P. No.190/2011 3|6 sum of Rs.10,000/- and not in lacs of rupees.
5. Further, the learned Magistrate had also taken the note of the fact that „comma‟ in the cheque had been put at an unusal place of the amount. It is pertinent to mention, if a cheque is drawn for a sum of Rs.10,000/- than the „comma‟ would be present after three zeros and if a cheque is drawn for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- than „two commas‟ be put, one after three zeros and one after „two zeros‟. In the instant case the cheque in question is stated to be for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and the „comma‟ which is put, is only after the three zeros meaning thereby, it refers 110,000 which is very unnatural way of writing the amount in figures.
6. The learned Magistrate has dealt with this aspect of the matter in para 9.1 which is reproduced as under:-
"No doubt that the cited judgments say that putting the amount and name on the cheque cannot be treated as material alteration under Section 87 NI Act. However, the judgment cited by the complainant are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. What the accused is alleging is not CRL.L.P. No.190/2011 4|6 that amount was put on the cheque, but a figure „1‟ was inserted before the figure Rs.10,000/-„. Such insertion, in my considered view can be treated as material alteration. In normal practice, figures in amount are written as 10,000/- & 1,00,000/-. In the instant cheque, figure is mentioned as 110,000/-. (We may probably believe that the person who wrote the figure on the cheque was apparently aware of this practice). If figure Rs.110,000/- was to be written, it ought to have been (not definitely but probably as per the standard of a reasonable man) like Rs.1,10,000/-‟. The same is not the case here."
7. I am in total agreement that the observations of the learned Magistrate that the manner in which the „commas‟ were put on the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in the cheque in question was creating a reasonable suspicion that the figure one has been added later by the appellant/complainant. It was for the appellant to have produced evidence to the contrary in this regard which he has failed to do. I, therefore, do not feel that there is any ground to grant the leave to appeal to the appellant.
8. I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan CRL.L.P. No.190/2011 5|6 Magistrate nor I am persuaded by any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
9. In view of the above, the leave to appeal sought by the petitioner is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI,J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
'b'
CRL.L.P. No.190/2011 6|6