A court in Pune has delivered a significant verdict in a case of financial fraud, convicting three partners of a real estate company and sentencing them to imprisonment for issuing a dishonoured cheque to an investor.
Court Verdict and Sentencing Details
On January 5, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate NR Gajbhiye convicted the three partners, including two women, of a real estate firm based in Guru Nanaknagar, Pune. The court sentenced them to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a hefty fine of Rs 20 lakh. The realty firm itself was also convicted as a juristic person, holding it criminally liable.
Since the sentence was for less than three years, the accused, who were present in court, sought its suspension to file an appeal. Lawyer Sanjay Bhojwani, representing the complainant, informed that Magistrate Gajbhiye granted a suspension for 30 days, noting the statutory appeal period.
Background of the Investment Fraud
The case stems from a Rs 1.23 crore investment made by the complainant, a former MNC employee and a teacher for the last three decades, in the real estate company back in 2017. One of the women partners, known to the Wilson Garden resident, had convinced her to invest for good returns.
When the promised returns and principal were not paid despite repeated requests, the parties entered into a notarised Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in August 2023. As per this MoU, the accused agreed to make a part payment via cheques. However, a cheque worth Rs 11 lakh issued by the firm was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Legal Proceedings Under the NI Act
Following the cheque bounce, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice. When the payment was not made within the stipulated time, a complaint was filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The court noted that the accused admitted to issuing the cheque and executing the MoU. Relying on the statutory presumption under the NI Act, the court held that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and that the accused failed to rebut this presumption. The defence's argument that the cheque was presented prematurely was rejected. The court observed that the liability was established and the cheque holder was legally authorised to present it.
While pronouncing the sentence, the court emphasized that the complainant suffered financial loss despite repeated demands and assurances. It ruled that both imprisonment and a substantial fine were warranted in the circumstances of the case.
