A court of additional sessions judge in Delhi has dismissed two appeals filed by a builder against his conviction whereby he was awarded 6-month jail term in cheque bounce cases alongwith fine of Rs 9 lakh in each case.
The Two cases goes around wherein the complainants had booked plot with the builder’s company named Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd., and paid Rs 3.78 lakh for it in the year 2010.
The builder had raised a further demand of Rs 1.34 lakh for registration in 2012 but the complainants refused to pay as they found out that no development work had been carried out on the plot.
The complainants later discovered that the builder didn't have any land, so, they demanded money back.
Builder was convicted by the Magistrate in two cases. When the matters reached the court of Additional Sessions Judge, he observed "I have considered the submission of Ld. Counsel for respondent and I have perused the record. The case of respondent in brief is that in March 2010 he booked a plot with the appellants and he paid total sum of Rs. 3,78,000/-. In December 2012, the appellants raised a demand of Rs.1,34,430/- for registration. Respondent checked and found that no development work had been done and therefore, the demand made by the appellant was illegal. In June 2013, the respondent and the other investors went to the office of appellants and asked for refund. In July 2014, the complainant received information that appellant no. 1 company had no land. The appellants agreed to return the amount to the respondent with interest and issued the cheque in question which included the principle amount and interest of Rs. 1,96,938.00/-".
He further observed "The defence taken by the appellants is that blank signed cheque had been given at the time of booking of plot and the respondent was in default as he did not pay the demand towards development charges and registration fee. It was also contended that there is no basis for calculation of interest".
He also observed "Respondent/complainant examined himself as CW-1. He categorically stated that there was no development at the site. This statement has not been rebutted by the appellants. Appellants claim to have given blank signed cheque to the respondent. Had the appellants given blank signed cheque to the respondent, he could have used the same earlier and there was no need for him to wait till 2014. The presumption was against the appellants u/s 139 r/w 118 NI Act which they miserably failed to rebut. The amount of interest which is part of the cheque amount is also not excessive and improbable considering the fact that Section 80 of NI Act prescribes rate of interest as 18%".
Read the Two Orders here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
