BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD.
DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENT
INDEX
S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES COURT
FEES
1 Court Fee
2 Urgent Application
3. Memo of Parties
4. Appeal Under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023
(Under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) alongwith
supporting Affidavit.
5. Application for under section 430 of
BNSS, 2023 (Under Section 389 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for
suspension of sentence of fine for an
amount of Rs.5,80,000/- and also grant
of bail with affidavit.
6. ANNEXURE-P-1
Certified copy Impugned Judgment dated
18/03/2025 passed by Sh. Pranjal
gangwar, JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
7. ANNEXURE-P-2
Certified Copy of Impugned Order on
Sentence dated 26.03.2025 passed by
the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Pranjal
Gangwar, JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
8. ANNEXURE-P-3
Copy of order dated 26.03.2025 for order
on suspension of sentence under section
389(3) Cr.P.C (Now section 430 of BNSS,
2023.
9. ID Proof of the Appellant.
10. Vakalatnama.
DELHI. APPELLANT
DATED:
Through
BALWAN SINGH
ADVOCATE
OFFICE AT:E-1215,
GROUND FLOOR, SHOP NO.2
JAHANGIR PURI, DELHI-33.
MOB.:7011053102
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENTS
P.S- Kashmere Gate
To,
The Hon’ble District and Session Judge
And His Companion Judges Of This District New Delhi
SUBJECT:- URGENT APPLICATION
Respected Sir,
The appeal Under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 (Under section 374
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been filed for setting aside
the Impugned Judgment dated 18.03.2025 and order on sentence
dated 26.03.2025 passed by Sh. Pranjal gangwar, JMFC (NI Act)
Digital Court-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in the case
title Tarun V/s Satish Verma in CC No. 2525/2021. Sentence of the
conviction was suspended on 26/03/2025 for a period of 30 days, due
to the urgency of the case kindly take the matter on priority in the
interest of justice. Kindly approve this urgent application.
Appellant
Date:
Place: Delhi
Through
Balwan Singh
Advocate
Office At:E-1215,
Ground Floor, Shop No.2
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-33.
Mob.: 7011053102
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENTS
P.S- Kashmere Gate
MEMO OF PARTIES
Satish verma
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o H.No. 619/35, Janta Colony,
Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
… Appellant
(Accused)
Versus
1. State NCT of Delhi
Through SHO, PS-Kashmere Gate
...Respondent No.1
2. Tarun
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Sharma,
R/o H.No. 78/4, Behind Arya Samaj Mandir,
Shivaji Colony, Rohtak
Haryana-124001
…Respondent No.2
(Complainant)
Appellant
Date:
Place: Delhi
Through
Balwan Singh
Advocate
Office At:E-1215,
Ground Floor, Shop No.2
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-33.
Mob.: 7011053102
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENT
P.S- Kashmere Gate
APPEAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT/ACCUSED UNDER SECTION
415 OF BNSS, 2023 (UNDER SECTION 374 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025 AND ORDER ON
SENTENCE DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED BY SH. PRANJAL
GANGWAR, JMFC, NI ACT (DIGITAL)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI IN CC CASE NO. 2525/2021 TITLED AS TARUN VERSUS
SATISH VERMA WHEREBY HOLDING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
AS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881.
To,
THE HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THIS DISTRICT, AT DELHI
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the captioned appeal has been filed by the
appellant/accused being aggrieved against the judgment dated
18.03.2025 passed by Sh. Pranjal Gangwar, JMFC, NI Act
(Digital)-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 2525/2021 titled
as “Tarun Versus Satish Verma” wherein holding the
appellant/accused as guilty of offence under section 138 The
Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the
impugned Judgment”). The Order on sentence dated 26.03.2025
was passed and the Appellant/accused has been awarded a fine
of Rs.5,80,000/- to be paid to the complainant/respondent no.2
within 60 days from the pronouncement of order of sentence and
in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple
imprisonment for One Month. Copy of impugned Judgment dated
18.03.2025 annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 and copy of
Order on Sentence dated 26.03.2025 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-2 and Order Dated 26.03.2025 to suspending the
sentence of Appellant/accused for 30 days to enable him to file
an Appeal are annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. That brief facts of this case as carved out from the complaint are
that the Respondent No.2/complainant was not known to the
appellant/accused at all. Rather, the father of the complainant
was known to the appellant/accused. It is stated by the
complainant in his complaint that the appellant/accused had
received a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the father of the
complainant and against which he had issued a promissory note
and receipt dated 16.02.2016, it has also been stated that the
appellant/accused has repaid/returned partial amount of
Rs.2,00,00/- and paid the interest payment till August, 2017.
The father of the complainant got expired on 28/10/2019 and
then the appellant/accused had executed another promissory
note dated 20/01/2020. Therefore, to discharge his liability
accused issued a cheque bearing no. 183833, dated 20.01.2021
for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. That the complainant had deposited the above said cheques in
his bank account at HDFC Bank, Kashmere Gate Branch, Delhi
for encashment on 20/01/2021, but the said cheques was
returned unpaid by the banker of the appellant/accused with the
remarks “Account Closed” vide returning memo dated
22/01/02021. The complainant had sent legal notice to the
appellant/accused through his advocate on dated 16/02/2021
and same was received to the appellant/accused on dated
19/02/2021 as per the speed post tracking report. All the
averments mentioned in the complaint and need to call for Trial
Court Record.
3. That the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the above said
Judgment dated 18.03.2025 and Order on sentence dated
26/03/2025 by the learned Trial Court holding the
Appellant/accused as guilty of offence u/s 138 of NI act, 1881.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
i. Because the impugned Order is not sustainable and
tenable on the question of fact and law and the same is
resting upon the conjecture and surmises and the same is
resting upon the vagueness.
ii. Because the Ld. Trial Court has totally failed to consider
and appreciate the material facts that there was no
justified and lawful. Because the learned trial court did not
consider the fact that amount of liability not due to the
appellant/accused and further the amount of cheque was
not the enforceable debt and not payable by the appellant.
Ld. Trial court has not considered the facts and not
examined properly.
iii. Because the learned trial court did not examined the proof
of part payment and further it is important to mentioned
here that learned trial court has not examined the fact that
the complainant was not the only legal heir of his deceased
father and not taken any power of attorney in respect of
legal enforceable debt. It is also pertinent to mentioned
here that the cheques was not issued in favour of the
complainant, it is also pertinent to mentioned here that the
promissory note dated 20.01.2020 was not issued by the
appellant/accused and the said promissory note is valid
document as it has not been affixed by stamp duty and not
attested through Notary Public for evident it.
iv. Because the details of the said promissory notes have not
been given in the legal notice issued by the advocate of
the complainant to the appellant/accused, but the Ld. Trial
court had failed to appreciate the facts in due course of
trial. The Ld. Trial court failed to examine the
maintainability of the complaint on the basis of non-
impleadment of the all legal heirs. The complainant
elaborated full story of the debt in his complaint but did
not disclosed the information regarding the legal heirs of
the deceased person. It is also pertinent to mentioned here
that the complainant failed to lead all the valid evidences
in his support, still the Ld. Trial Court has passed the
impugned judgement in the favour of complainant and
declared the appellant/accused as guilty of offence under
section 138 of NI Act..
v. Because the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that
the Respondent No. 2 had admittedly not disclosed the
NOC from the other legal heirs and the amount claimed
severely on the basis of forged, fabricated and invalid
promissory note without any stamp duty or witnesses. It is
also pertinent to mentioned here that, the
appellant/accused never ever signed the promissory note
dated 20.01.2020 in favour of complainant. It is also
pertinent to mentioned here that the father of the
complainant taken the signatures of the appellant on few
blank papers and the same has been used by complaint for
taking benefit of it in the present case of NI Act.
vi. Because the Ld. Trial Court did not considered the fact the
aim and object of prosecution of dishonor of a cheque is to
enhance the acceptability of cheques in commercial
transactions whereas the transaction between the
Respondent No. 2/Complainant and appellant was not
taken place and was illegal being in violation of Money
Laundering Act as applicable to and hence complaint itself
was not maintainable, but the Ld. Trial court failed to
examine the fact in detail.
vii. Because the impugned sentence is bad in law as learned
trial court did not consider the fact that the criteria to
award compensation to Respondent No. 2 in terms of
section 357(1) (b) of Cr.PC was not applicable in present
case as the amount was not recoverable by Respondent
No. 2 in a civil proceedings being in violation of law.
viii. Because the Ld. Trial Court has awarded the fine of Rs.
5,80,000/- and simple imprisonment of 1 month in the
case of default in payment of fine amount but the Ld. Trial
Court did not considered the family responsibility of the
accused and burden of responsibility of his child and the
accused is only the source of income for the his family
members.
ix. Because the Ld. Trial Court did not considered that the
Respondent No.2/Complainant has admitted that the part
amount has already be received to the father of the
complainant and now the father of the complainant is no
more and the evidence of enforceable debt can’t examine
in the interest of justice and now the complainant not
followed the due course of law to file the complaint against
the appellant/accused, it is also pertinent to mentioned
here that the cheque bearing no. 183833 dated
20/01/2021 was not filled by the appellant/accused,
although the Respondent No.2/Complainant himself filled
the cheque without intimating to the appellant/accused
and by using blank signed paper made the promissory note
and used to file the complaint, hence the judgment passed
by the Ld. Trial Court not good in the eyes of law and
failed to examine the facts of the case and legal provisions
as applicable.
x. Because, if the impugned Judgement dated 18.03.2025
and Order on sentence dated 26.03.2025 are not set-aside
then the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury
and it will lead to miscarriage and failure of justice and the
injury suffered by the appellant cannot be compensated in
any manner whatsoever. Because, if the impugned Order
is set-aside then it will not cause any kind of prejudice to
the interest of the appellant.
xi. Because, Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that
there was no legally admissible evidence against the
appellant/accused to prove the enforceability of debt and
the learned trial court did not appreciate the case in its
correct perspective while convicting the appellant.
xii. That if the Appellant/Accused has been granted the bail
throughout the trial and he never misused the liberty of
bail.
xiii. That the appellant has never been convicted in any other
case and no criminal case is pending against him.
xiv. That the captioned appeal is within period of limitation.
xv. That the appellant reserves his rights to urge any other
grounds at the time of arguments before this Hon’ble
Court.
xvi. That the Appellant has not filed any appeal against the
impugned judgment and order either in Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi or any other Court for the same or similar reliefs
as prayed herein.
P R A Y E R:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to:
a) Call for the records of the case from trial Court.
b) Set aside the Judgment dated 18.03.2025 and Order on
sentence dated 26.03.2025 passed by Sh. Pranjal
Gangwar, JMFC, NI Act (Digital)-02, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in CC No. 2525/2021 titled as “Tarun Versus Satish
Verma” and.
c) Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in
favour of the appellant.
Appellant
Date:
Place: Delhi
Through
Balwan Singh
Advocate
Office At:E-1215,
Ground Floor, Shop No.2
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.
Mob.: 7011053102
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Satish Verma son of Sh. Sita Ram R/o H.No. 619/35, Janta Colony,
Rohtak, Haryana-124001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That I am the Appellant in the above said matter and well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also
competent to file the present affidavit.
2. That I have filed Appeal under section 415 of BNSS, 2023 (under
section 274 OF Cr.P.C. ACT’ 1973). The present appeal has been
drafted and prepared under the instruction and direction of me,
the contents of the aforesaid appeal has been duly explained and
read over to me in my vernacular language.
3. That present affidavit has been signed by me in my sound state
of mind and out of my free will and consent.
4. The contents of said appeal may kindly be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit also as the contents of the same have not
been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this 23rd April, 2025 that the contents of
my above affidavit are true and correct to knowledge, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 389
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR SUSPENSION OF
SENTENCE OF FINE/COMPENSATION IMPOSED VIDE ORDER
DATED 18/03/2025 BY ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED
26.03.2025 PASSED BY SH. PRANJAL GANGWAR, JMFC, NI ACT
(DIGITAL)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN CC CASE NO.
2525/2021 TITLED AS TARUN VERSUS SATISH VERMA
WHEREBY HOLDING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED AS GUILTY
UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND
ALSO FOR GRANT OF BAIL TO APPELLANT.
Most Respectfully Showeth:-
1. The applicant/Appellant has filed the captioned Appeal against
Judgment dated 18.03.2025 and Order on Sentence dated
26.03.2025 passed by Sh. Pranjal Gangwar, JMFC, NI Act
(Digital)-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 2525/2021 titled
as “Tarun Versus Satish Verma” whereby holding the Appellant
guilty under Section 138 of The Negotiable Act.
2. That Appellant has been awarded simple imprisonment for 01
month in case of default of payment of fine vide Order dated
26.03.2025. The contents of the accompanying Appeal may
kindly be read as part of this Application also and the contents of
the same are not repeated herein for sake of brevity.
3. It is submitted that the complaint of Respondent No. 2 is legally
not sustainable and the fine amount is very huge amount and
can’t be arranged in time.
4. That the appellant has already face the ordeal of the present
case for a very long time.
5. That the Application/Appellant has been on bail throughout the
trial.
6. That the Applicant/Appellant has been undergone from heart
surgery and suffering from various ailments of heart and the
required medical records of Appellant/accused will be provided to
this Hon’ble Court.
7. That the appellant has a good case in his favour and is likely to
succeed in accompanying appeal.
8. That the fine/compensation amount also forms a part of the
sentence and in view of provisions of Section 430 of BNSS, 2023
(Section 389 Cr. P C) the same is also liable to be suspended by
this Hon’ble Court till the disposal of the accompanying appeal.
9. That appellant also has never been convicted in any other case
and no criminal case is pending against him.
PRAYER:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court
may kindly be pleased to stay:
a. Suspend the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
Applicant/Appellant by Ld. Trial Court vide Order dated
18.03.2025 in CC No. 2525/2021 titled as “Tarun Versus
Satish Verma” till the final disposal of the accompanying
Appeal by this Hon’ble Court.
b. Suspend/Waive the deposit of compensation/fine amount of
Rs.5,80,000/- which forms a part of sentence by the Ld. Trial
Court till the disposal of the accompanying Appeal by this
Hon’ble Court.
c. Grant him the bail in the present case till the disposal of the
accompanying Appeal by this Hon’ble Court; and
d. Pass any other and further Orders which are just and
expedient in favour of Appellant in facts and circumstances of
the case.
Appellant
Date:
Place: Delhi
Through
Balwan Singh
Advocate
Office At:E-1215,
Ground Floor, Shop No.2
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.
Mob.: 7011053102
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl.(Appeal) No. ____ OF 2025
In
CC No. 2525/2021
In The Matter Of:-
SATISH VERMA …APPELLANT
V/S
TARUN ...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Satish Verma son of Sh. Sita Ram R/o H.No. 619/35, Janta Colony,
Rohtak, Haryana-124001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That I am the Appellant in the captioned Appeal and am well
aware of the facts and circumstance of this case and therefore
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. The accompanying Application has been drafted by my Counsel
under my instructions. I have read and understood the contents
of same and I say that the same are true and correct to my
knowledge and the paragraphs legal in nature are based the
advice received and believed by me to be correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this 23rd April, 2025 that the contents of
my above affidavit are true and correct to knowledge, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
