AMAN GOYAL Vs. ANEET GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complaint was filed on account of dishonour of Cheque No.049331 dtd. 16/11/2012 drawn on Central Bank of India, Sector 10, Panchkula for a sum of Rs.2.33 crores. The complaint succeeded and the petitioner was convicted vide judgment of conviction dtd. 9/2/2017. Vide order of sentence of even date, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and has also been made liable to pay Rs.2.00 crores as compensation. Appeal thereagainst has been dismissed vide judgment dtd. 22/12/2022.

(2.) The averments made in the complaint are that the accused induced the complainant to invest a sum of Rs.2.00 crores in the business of oil retail outlet as his wife had been allotted one by the Indian Oil Corporation. An assurance was given that if the project did not commence by the end of October, 2012, the amount would be returned. Thus, a sum of Rs.2.17 crores in all was deposited in the account of M/s Sakshi Trading Company through various transactions. Excess amount of Rs.16.00 lacs was returned and a sum of only Rs.2.01 crores was retained. Rs.1.00 lac was retained for expenses to be borne for finalization of partnership documents. As security, six different cheques were given to the complainant, the first of which was for a sum of Rs.51,12,500.00 and dtd. 16/11/2011 and the remaining were for a total sum of Rs.1.5 crores and dtd. 31/1/2012. The accused could not commence business as promised and return of money was demanded. In discharge of his liability aforementioned cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.2.33 crores, Rs.32.00 lacs being on account of interest. However, the same was dishonoured.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the averments made in the complaint. The factum of payment of sum of Rs.2.17 crores in the account of M/s Sakshi Trading Company was denied. He also denied issuance of the cheque in dispute and his signature thereupon. It was stated that the complainant had obtained a cheque book of 20 leaves by forging an application and without the knowledge of the accused. FIR No.76, dtd. 12/6/2013 was thus got registered. Being the Chartered Accountant of the accused, he had misused his position.