Delhi District Court
M/S Stanvac Prime Private Limited vs Deepak Kumar on 3 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAM GUPTA. : LD. JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-NI ACT, DIGITAL COURT-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS COMPLEX:
NEW DELHI
M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited
Versus
Deepak Kumar
CC No. 3178-2021
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CNR number : DLND02-009280-2021
2. Name of the complainant : M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited
Having registered office at
15-16, Old Sewa Nagar Market,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
Also having its workplace and office
at:
B-100, Mayapuri Phase-1,
New Police Station,
New Delhi-110064
Through its AR, Harish Sharma
3. Name of the accused, parentage : Sh. Deepak Kumar,
CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 1 of 22
SHIVAM Digitally signed by
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03
17:37:42 +0530
and residential address Proprietor of
M/s Maurya Enterprises,
Having its office and workplace at:
Morcha Road, Patna City, Patna,
Bihar-800009
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : CONVICTION
7. Date of judgment/order : 03.02.2025
Date of filing of complaint: 07.07.2021
Date of reserving judgment: 17.01.2025
Date of judgment: 03.02.2025
ARGUING COUNSELS
For the Complainant : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Passey
For the Accused : Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited through its AR Harish Sharma CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 2 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:37:46 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against Sh. Deepak Kumar proprietor of M/s Maurya Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused person') U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 r/w Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
Brief facts:
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant has a business of manufacturing and selling Aerosol products. That the accused person who is the proprietor of M/s Maurya Enterprises contacted the complainant with the intention of becoming a dealer/distributor of the complainant. The accused person entered into a Distributorship Agreement with the complainant. That as per one of the terms of the agreement, the accused person had to make the payment of the goods purchased within 21 days from the date of invoice and in case payment was not made within time, then the complainant would be entitled to charge interest at an outstanding amount @2% per month. That the accused person was purchasing goods from the complainant and on 01.05.2021 accused person was liable to make outstanding payment of Rs. 3,67,903.51/- to the complainant, the same is also reflected in the ledger account statement.That the accused person in discharge of his partial liability issued the cheque in question.
DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES IN QUESTION:
Cheque Cheque Date of the Cheque Date of Reasons CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 3 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:37:50 +0530 number amount cheque drawn on return for memo dishonour 000682 Rs. 25.04.2021 ICICI 06.05.2021 Payment 2,24,500/- Bank stopped by the drawer That, the complainant presented the cheques to its banker i.e. RBL Bank Limited, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001, however it was returned back vide return memo, with the endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT". The complainant after receipt of the said dishonoured cheques, sent a legal notice dated 15.05.2021 in writing to the accused through his counsel which was dispatched on 18.05.2021 through Speed post. The accused had failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant within stipulated time of 15 days, hence this complaint U/S 138/142 NI Act.
Proceedings before the Court:
3. The complaint was received by assignment in this Court. After perusing the complaint and hearing the arguments of the complainant on the point of summoning of the accused, prima facie it appeared that the offence U/S 138 NI Act, has been made out. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act was taken against the accused on 27.06.2022 and summons were issued to the accused.
CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 4 of 22 Digitally signedSHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:37:55 +0530
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 04.10.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, considering the defence stated at the time of framing of notice by the accused, and no objection by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant this court decided to allow cross examination of the complainant as per 145(2) of the NI Act, and the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant evidence, complainant examined himself as sole witness CW-1. After due cross examination of CW-1 by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, complainant's evidence was closed in the present case on 04.12.2023. Statement of the accused U/Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 23.10.2024 wherein the accused stated that he wishes to lead defence evidence. The accused was examined, cross examined and discharged on 03.01.2025. Defence evidence was closed by the order of the court on the same day. The matter was listed for final arguments on 17.01.2025. On 17.01.2025, the final arguments of the parties were heard at length.
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has led his evidence by way of evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:-
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT No. CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 5 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:37:58 +0530 1. Certified true copy of resolution no. 5 dated 09.06.2021 CW1/1 2. True copy of incorporation certificate CW1/2 3. Cheque bearing number 000682 dated 25.04.2021 CW1/2 4. Return memo CW1/4 5. Legal demand notice dated 15.05.2021 CW1/5 6. Postal Receipt CW1/6 7. Tracking Report CW1/7 8. Reply to the legal demand notice dated 29.05.2021 CW1/8 9. Certificate under Sec 65 B of IEA CW1/9 10. Ledger Statement CW1/10 11. Complaint CW1/11
6. The accused person has brought the following documents in his defence:
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT No. 1. Receipt of Neo Bright Express Transport Pvt. Ltd. Mark A CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 6 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:02 +0530
7. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the accused orally argued at length.
Arguments of both parties:
8. COMPLAINANT'S ARGUMENTS The complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint has argued that all the requirements of Section 138, NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused person was making regular payment till 2021, but after that he has not paid the liability as per the ledger statement which is on record. The cheque was given and he said that the same would be honoured.
The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused person replied to the legal demand notice and he has taken the defence of revision of price, however revision of price was not possible as the products were already supplied to the accused person. The AR of the complainant has also proved the case beyond doubt through his examination and cross examination. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant was never restrained from appointing any other distributor and there is nothing on record to show the same. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused person in his examination in chief has not stated any dates, when allegedly any goods were returned, thus his examination in chief is very vague. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that even if we presume CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 7 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:05 +0530 that he has sent back the goods, still he has not made the complete payment. Therefore, the presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act has been raised and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
The complainant has further argued that the accused has not been able to raise any probable defence. Therefore, accused be convicted for the offence U/S 138 NI Act with maximum punishment.
9. ACCUSED'S ARGUMENTS Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused person while opposing the present case has argued that the complainant has intentionally not brought the dealership agreement on record, because as per the dealership agreement the accused person was the exclusive distributor of the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has further argued that the accused person has proved that two more distributors were appointed. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the products supplied by the complainant were expiring or about to expire in a few months, thus the accused requested for new products as well because COVID was also there. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused has sent back products worth approx Rs. 45,000/- which are not adjusted by the complainant in the ledger. further, the complainant never gave any explanation as to why the goods were not proper or as to why no sale support was given. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person further argued that the complainant provided the products to other distributors at discounted price due to which the accused suffered further losses. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has also argued that the invoices CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 8 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:38:10 +0530 are also not on record which contained the terms and conditions. Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that the complainant has misused the cheque in question. Thus, he argued that the complaint should be dismissed and the accused be acquitted.
10. COMPLAINANT'S REBUTTAL The Ld. Counsel for the complainant in rebuttal has stated that the complainant never received any products that the accused person has allegedly sent back. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the tracking receipt which the accused person has brought is just a photocopy, and it is a fabricated document. Further, the accused person has not stated what products have been sent back, and how the accused has calculated the worth of the products allegedly returned. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused person in his cross examination has admitted that he was supplied with the goods and the goods could have been replaced only in 15 days if damaged in transit. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused could have brought his copy of the agreement.
Legal Provisions
11. I have heard counsels on behalf of both sides and perused the record carefully.
12. Before deciding the present complaint case, let the legal provisions be considered.
CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 9 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.02.03
17:38:15
+0530
"Section 138.- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:"
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:
(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 10 of 22 Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:20 +0530
(b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation -- for the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
For fastening liability U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, following are the requirements :-
I. Drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, II. The cheque was issued for payment to another person for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
III. Cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 11 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:38:23 +0530 earlier. RBI in its notification DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 has reduced the aforesaid period from 6 months to 3 months.
IV. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque;
V. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount;
VI. Failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
The offence under Section 138, NI Act is made out against the drawer of the cheque, only when all the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled.
13. Further Section 118 Clause (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumptions regarding the consideration for the Negotiable Instruments. It reads as under: -
"That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 12 of 22 Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:27 +0530 Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under
:- "The court shall, in respect of every proceedings under this chapter on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon official mark denoting that the cheque has dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved."
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as under :-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability."
The combined reading of above said sections, raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is a settled principle of law that the presumption U/S 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence but the burden of proof is on the accused.
14. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof as recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 13 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03
17:38:31 +0530
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarize the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. 25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 14 of 22 Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:36 +0530 25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
15. Now, it is upon the accused to displace this presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities and the lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt, but it need not be proved to the hilt or beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused can either prove that the liability did not exist or make the non-existence of liability so probable that a reasonable person ought under the circumstances of the case act on the supposition that it does not exist. Thus, the accused can do so either by leading his own evidence in defence or even by punching holes in the case of the complainant in cross-examination.
16. The accused has to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality. Only in a case where the accused comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, that the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted.
Appreciation of evidence:
17. Coming to the present case, the accused person has admitted his signatures as well as other particulars in his handwriting on the cheque, thus the presumptions under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act are raised against him. The accused person has denied the legal liability by stating that he returned some goods to the complainant which were defective. The question to CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 15 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:38:40 +0530 be decided for ascertaining the liability of the accused person is: whether there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability to the extent mentioned in the cheque, against the accused?
18. The term "legally enforceable debt" is defined in the Explanation to Section 138 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. It refers to a debt or other liability that can be lawfully recovered through the due process of law. In order for Section 138 to apply, the debt or liability must be legally enforceable. As per Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (Supra) to rebut the presumption and prove to the contrary, it is open to the accused to raise a probable defence, wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The words 'until the contrary is proved' occurring in Section 139, do not mean that the accused must necessarily prove the negative that the instrument is not issued in discharge of any debt/liability, but the accused has two options. The first option is to prove that the debt/liability does not exist and conclusively establish with certainty that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The second option is to prove the non-existence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the circumstances of the case.
19. The accused person in his cross examination as DW1 has admitted the receiving of the goods by stating:
CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 16 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03
17:38:44 +0530
"...It is correct that I was supplied the purchase goods on various date as mentioned in legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 and the complaint which is Ex. CW1/11..."
The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the products supplied by the complainant were expiring or about to expire in a few months, however there is nothing on record to show the same. Thus, this argument of the accused person is baseless and is merely a bald argument.
20. To show the legal liability of the accused person, the complainant has brought the ledger statement which is Ex. CW1/10. The accused person has disputed the ledger statement by stating that the complainant has not adjusted the value of the goods that were returned by him. To substantiate his claim that certain goods have been returned, the accused person has brought a receipt of Neo Bright Express Transport Pvt. Ltd., which is Mark A. The document Mark A is a photocopy, neither the accused person has brought the original copy of the document nor the accused person has given any reason as to why the original document could not be produced. Further the accused person has not brought on record the tracking report of the receipt Mark A; in the absence of the tracking report it cannot be ascertained whether the products that have been allegedly sent back to the complainant, were delivered to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that during the cross examination of the AR of the complainant as CW1, no questions regarding the alleged returned products were put to the AR of the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has not even given any CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 17 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:38:48 +0530 suggestion to the AR of the complainant regarding the alleged return of the alleged products. Furthermore, during the cross examination of the accused as DW1 he has stated:
"...It is correct that complainant had not acknowledged that the damaged goods had been received by it at any point of time..."
Therefore, in the absence of any tracking report of Mark A, as well as the absence of any acknowledgment by the complainant, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the delivery of the products.
21. Further the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has correctly pointed out that the accused person in his examination as DW1 has not stated the name, quantity or value of the products that have allegedly been sent back to the complainant.
22. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the complainant has not complied with the agreement as the complainant appointed two more distributors, while exclusive rights were given to the accused person. The dealership agreement is not on record, thus there is nothing on record to show that the accused person had exclusive rights. It is correct that the complainant has not put the dealership agreement on record, however the complainant already has presumption u/s 139, NI Act in his favour. Furthermore, the accused person has neither asked the complainant during cross examination, to bring the CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 18 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:38:52 +0530 dealership agreement on record nor he has brought the dealership agreement himself. Similarly, the Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the invoices are not on record, but the same have not been produced by the accused himself as well. It is to be noted that the complainant was not required to produce the dealership agreement or the invoices, as there is presumption under Section 139 NI Act in his favour. The accused person failed in producing any document, or calling any document from the complainant. Moreover, when a specific question was asked by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant the accused person replied that he is not even aware about the name of the other distributors appointed by the complainant. Thus, this argument of the accused person also does not hold any ground.
23. The accused person through his counsel in his reply to the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/8 paragraph 5 has stated:
"...my client had requested your company to stop the Post Outdated Cheque on April 24th,2021 through email at 01:42 p.m...."
Further in paragraph 6 the accused person through his counsel has stated:
"...my client had sent an email to your company on 24th April,2021 at 16:29 regarding the payment on which he had listed that he had a market outstanding payment of almost 50% of the original amount..."
Further in paragraph 8 the accused person through his counsel has stated:
CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 19 of 22 Digitally signedSHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:55 +0530 "...my client has to say that he clearly stated in his email sent on April 25th,2021 at 21:28 that there was some issue due to which he won't be able to make the payment on time and requested not to encash the Cheque..." It is pertinent to note that the above emails were never brought on record by the accused persons. Thus the above is a mere averment by the accused without any evidence.
24. The contradictions and inconsistencies raised by the accused alone in absence of any other evidence or supporting material is not sufficient to put any dent in the testimony of the complainant. In that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rohitbhai J. Patel v. The State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal no. 508/2019 held as follows:
"Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. The other observations as regards any variance in the statement of complainant and witness; or want of knowledge about dates and other particulars of the cheques; or washing CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 20 of 22 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.03 17:38:59 +0530 away of the earlier cheques in the rains though the office of the complainant being on the 8th floor had also been of irrelevant factors for consideration of a probable defence of the appellant it is noticed that the Trial Court proceeded on a misplaced assumption that by mere denial or mere creation of doubt, the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption as envisaged by Section 139 of the NI Act. In the scheme of NI Act, mere creation of doubts is not sufficient."
25. The version of the complainant has remained consistent throughout. The AR complainant has stated in the complaint, evidence by way of affidavit and his cross examination, that there is an outstanding of Rs. 3,67,903.51/- and the cheque in question was given against part liability by the accused person. The burden was on the accused to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality, and show that there existed no legally enforceable debt against him. Only in a case where the accused person comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted. In this case, the accused has completely failed to rebut the presumption which arises from the issuance of cheque, wherein the issuance of cheque is admitted by both the parties.
Conclusion:
26. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the accused has failed to shake the case of the complainant and highlight infirmities in his case so as to rebut the CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 21 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:39:04 +0530 presumptions raised in the favour of the complainant u/s 139 read with Section 118, NI Act. Furthermore, cross-examination of the complainant by the accused also did not shake the veracity of the complainant's testimony and the documents on record. Thus, the presumptions in favour of the complainant have not been rebutted by the accused. In light of this, accused Sh. Deepak Kumar, proprietor of M/s Maurya Enterprises, is convicted for the offence U/S 138, N.I. Act.
Judgment pronounced in the open court on 03.02.2025.
This judgment consists of 22 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 17:39:09 Date: 2025.02.03 +0530 (Shivam Gupta) Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-02 PHC, New Delhi 03.02.2025 CC No. 3178 of 2021 M/s Stanvac Prime Private Limited Versus Deepak Kumar Page 22 of 22 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.03 17:39:13 +0530