Business Standard

Friday, December 20, 2024 | 08:28 PM ISTEN Hindi

Notification Icon
userprofile IconSearch

Cheque bounce: Man sentenced to 1 yr jail, fined Rs 16.54 lakh

Image

Press Trust of India New Delhi
A physically-challenged man has been sentenced to a year in jail in a cheque bounce case by a Delhi court.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Kuldeep Narayan also asked Sanjay Gairola, a native of Uttarakhand, to pay Rs 16 lakh as compensation to the complainant and Rs 54,000 to be deposited with the State.

The court, however, suspended Sanjay's jail term till October 8 and enlarged him on bail on furnishing a personal bail bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.

"The convict (Sanjay) deliberately avoided to make any payment to the complainant which consequently caused losses to the complainant.
 

"... Considering the physical condition as well as age of the convict, lenient view can be taken in the present case," the court said.

Sanjay was facing trial on the complaint lodged by the director of M/s Real Estate Consultant and Infrastructure, Piyush Singhania, who had alleged the accused availed his consultancy services and agreed to pay a sum of Rs 15 lakh.

Singhania had said he had rendered real estate consultancy services to Sanjay to his utmost satisfaction but after completion of the work, accused showed his inability to pay the agreed amount.

"To avoid future controversy, Sanjay in June 2009 entered into an agreement with the complainant and issued cheque of Rs 16,54,500 which on presentation was dishonoured and returned unpaid on August 1, 2010," the police had said.

The services provided to Sanjay was regarding two projects on sewage system in Nainital, they said.

"There is a force in the contentions of the counsel for the complainant that in the normal course of business, a person who does a work for others will get remunerations from him and would not give money to him for doing his work.

"So far, the accused could not bring any circumstance on record to suggest his contentions that he was supposed to pay to the complainant for doing the complainant's own work," the court observed.

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Sep 16 2013 | 7:16 PM IST

Explore News