LAWS(DLH)-1984-4-8

NAVEEN VARSHNEYA Vs. STATE

Decided On April 02, 1984
NAVIN VARSHNEYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition assails the order dated 3-2-1983 passed by Shri T.S. Oberoi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on a revision having been preferred by the petitioners Naveen Varshneya and Smt. Nirmal Varshneya against the order dated 22-5-1982 passed by Mrs. Aruna Suresh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby the learned magistrate had summoned both the petitioners in the complaint filed under Sections 420, 120-B and also under Section 34 Indian Penal Code and which order was held valid by Shri T.S. Oberoi in revision.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 Naveen Varshneya and petitioner No. 2 Mrs. Nirmal Varshneya are husband and wife and whereas the former is sole proprietor of M/s Kumar Enterprises the latter is the sole proprietor of M/s Kumar Traders. Both these concerns of the petitioners have been having business dealings with M/s Radha Krishan Bimal Kumar (P.) Ltd, Khari Baoli Delhi in which the complainant Suresh Chand Sharma is the Sales Executive. Petitioner No. 1 Naveen Varshneya alone had been in contact with M/s Radha Krishan Bimal Kumar (P) Ltd. for making purchases of orient black, phil black and zinc oxide etc. and it was the name of M/s Kumar Enterprises as well as in the name of his wife's concern M/s Kumar Traders that these purchases were made by petitioner No. 1 for a period of about 8 months from November 1979 upto July 1980, wherein he was to pay a balance sum of Rs. 5052.75 in the account of his own concern M/s Kumar Enterprises and another sum of Rs. 43,720.60 in the account of his wife's concern M/s Kumar Traders, the total thus being to the tune of Rs. 48,773.25.

(3.) Petitioner No. 1 had already cleared off the price payment in respect of a large number of various items of the aforesaid purchases, by means of post-dated cheques and gave the following three post-dated cheques admittedly against the aforesaid subsisting liability of Rs. 48,773.25 as on 12-7-1980 allegedly assuring that the same would be honoured on presentation on due dates: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_227_DLT26_1984Html1.htm</FRM>