Delhi District Court
M/S Shriram Transport Finance Company ... vs Amit Kumar on 9 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT,
NORTH EAST, KKD, NEW DELHI
Presided over by-Ms. Ravisha Sidana, DJS
DLNE020040482021
CC NO. 647/2021
M/S Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Branch office:
C-1/5A, 1st Floor,
Above SBI Bank,
Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053 ......... Complainant
vs
Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh
R/o H.No. K-5/6, Street No.06,
Hunshraj Dairy, Ghonda,
West Ghonda Garhi Mendu,
Delhi- 110053 ......... Accused
1.Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments or proved Act, 1881 (NI Act)
2. Date of Filing 14.09.2021
3. Plea of Accused Not Guilty
4. Date of Reserving 04.04.2025 Order
5. Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2025
6. Final Order Acquitted.
Argued by :- Ld. counsel for the complainant Sh. Chaman Sharma Ld. counsel for the accused Sh. Vikas Giri CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 1 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.04.09 17:03:18 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of a complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') filed by the complainant company against the accused.
2. It is case of the complainant that complainant is a registered company in the name & style of "Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd." having its registered office at 14A, South Phase Industrial Estate, Guindy Chennai and having its branch office at C-1/5A, First Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and is engaged in the business of financing, leasing amongst other business. The complainant has appointed Sh. Gyan Singh as authorised representative to appear before/institute and prosecute any suit or criminal complaint, verify and sign all the legal document, vakalatnama, plaints and affidavit on behalf of the company before any court of judicial authorities.
3. The accused had approached to the complainant for financial assistance of a vehicle loan and on his request, the complainant sanctioned and disbursed the amount financed in terms of agreement YMNVR080430002.
4. In discharge of his liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing no. 733485 dt. 24.06.2021 for Rs. 7,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shyamali, Prabudh Nagar, UP in favour of the complainant with assurance that the said cheque will be encashed on its presentation.
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 2
Digitally signed
RAVISHA by RAVISHA
SIDANA
SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09
17:03:25 +0530
5. On the assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the abovesaid cheque for encashment with his bank but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with remarks "funds insufficient" vide return memo dated 16.07.2021.
6. The complainant had sent a legal notice dated 27.07.2021 to the accused through his counsel regarding the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque through registered AD & speed post but the accused has neither discharged his liability nor make payment of the cheque amount and therefore, the present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
7. On being satisfied of the prima facie ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 18.11.2021.
8. Accordingly, on 21.02.2022 notice under Section 251 Cr.PC r/w Section 263(g) Cr.P.C was framed and served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While putting forth his plea of defence, accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, however denied the other particulars of the cheque being filled by him. He also admitted receipt of legal demand notice. He further raised his defence as follows:
"Yes, I had taken the loan from the complainant company of Rs. 7 lacs and I have repaid some amount also, however I do not remember the same. The cheque in question has been given to complainant as security. I do not owe the cheque liability towards the complainant. I do not want to say anything else".
9. In Complainant's evidence, the AR for complainant (CW-1) stand as CW1 and relied upon the following documents:
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 3 Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09 17:03:33 +0530 i) Ex. CW1/1 :Evidence of complainant by way of affidavit. ii) Mark 1 :Copy of certificate of incorporation iii) Ex. CW1/A : Special power of attorney iv) Ex. CW1/B : Cheque in question (Admitted U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.) v) Ex. CW1/C : Cheque Returning memo (Admitted U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.) vi) Ex. CW1/D : Legal demand notice. (Admitted U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.) vii) Ex. CW1/E : Postal receipt viii) Mark 2 : Tracking report
10. CW1/AR of complainant was cross examined on behalf of the accused. During cross examination vide the same day on 08.11.2023, CW1 deposed that has been woking in the above said company since August 2016. His first posting in the above said company was at Sohna, Haryana. He has attached a proof of ID and SPA in the judicial file which mentions that he was appointed AR. Upon confrontation with the judicial file, ID of AR was not found.
10.1 CW1 stated that the person who authorised him as AR was U. Balasunder Rao being the Executive Director of the company. He denied that the SPA was framed at Sohna, Haryana but clarified that the SPA was framed at Chennai. As this regards, he didn't go to Chennai for taking his SPA. He does not remember whether the SPA was notarised at Chennai or not. He denied the suggestion that he did not remember whether it was notarised at Chennai or not as it was never notarised at Chennai. Upon confrontation with Ex CW1/A, CW1 states that his SPA was framed in the CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 4 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.04.09 17:03:40 +0530 year 2021, however he does not remember the exact date. Again, after showing Ex CW1/A, CW1 admits that the date of the SPA is mentioned as 12 Jan 2021. He again says that he do not remember the date on which the SPA was notarised. Upon questioning that whether the stamp paper on which SPA was notarised is purchased From Maharashtra, CW1 lacks knowledge about the same. Further, he do not remember whether the SPA attached in the judicial file bears his signature or not but denies the It suggestion that he does not remember whether the SPA bears his signature or not as no such SPA was made in his favour.
10.2 Qua the alleged loan transaction, CW1 stated that the accused approached their company for loan in year 2018. But he does not remember about mentioning of the fact that the accused approached their company for loan in 2018 in his complaint or evidence affidavit and Voluntarily states that he has mentioned in the aforesaid fact in the legal notice. He does not remember whether he had signed on my evidence affidavit. He again said that he has signed on his evidence affidavit. He admitted that he had signed the evidence affidavit after reading all the facts and read the legal notice before sending it to the accused. He stated to have sent the legal notice in the year 2021 but he does not remember the exact date. 10.3 The accused approached their company for taking the loan of amount of Rs 10 lacs but he does not remember about mentioning the fact that the accused approached our company for taking the loan of amount of Rs 10 lacs in his complaint, evidence affidavit or legal notice. He further voluntarily states that the Accused approached for Rs 10 lacs but the complainant company disbursed loan of amount of Rs 7 lacs on April 2018.
The no. of vehicle in question is UP19T4177. He admitted that he had mentioned about the fact that the amount of Rs 7 lacs was given against the above said vehicle no. in his complaint and evidence affidavit. Upon confrontation with the judicial file, the above stated fact was not mentioned CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 5 Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09 17:03:47 +0530 in complaint and evidence affidavit but voluntarily states that It is mentioned in legal notice of the judicial file. He does not remember the exact date on which the loan was disbursed. He has not filed the loan statement of account in the judicial file but voluntarily states that he can file the same today same and it was marked as Mark 3. 10.4 During further cross-examination dated 11.07.2024, CW1 did not remember whether any loan agreement is attached in the judicial file or not. Upon confrontation with the judicial file, CW1 admitted that the loan agreement is not attached in the judicial file but He denied the suggestion that no such agreement is attached in the judicial file because no such loan was ever executed at any point of time.Upon confrontation with document Mark 3, CW1 stated that accused had repaid amount of Rs 4,17,019/-. He denied the suggestion that the vehicle was repossessed by the complainant company.
10.5 Qua the handing over the impugned cheque, CW1 states that he does not know whether blank signed cheque was taken or not at the time of disbursement of loan. He voluntarily stated that he was not present at that time. He denied the suggestion that at the time of disbursement of loan, he was not the employee of the company. He stated to be the AR for the complainant company at the time the case was filed against the accused but he admitted that he was not the AR at the time of disbursement of loan. 10.6 Upon confrontation with the cheque in question (Ex CW1/B), wherein CW1 stated that he cannot tell after looking the cheque whether the ink of the handwriting of the particulars and that of the signature on the cheque are different or not.
10.7 He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately concealing about the above mentioned fact, as the cheque in question was taken as security which was blank and signed and further denied the suggestion that the accused had paid all the due amount and that the complainant company CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 6 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.04.09 17:03:53 +0530 has misused the cheque in question and had filed exaggerated amount to extort money from the accused. Thereafter, the CE was closed.
11. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and accused has admitted the transaction of the alleged loan from the complainant. The cheque in question alongwith ten blank and signed cheques had been given to the complainant at the time of disbursement of the aforesaid loan. He had denied having received legal notice. He had admitted his signature on the cheque and denied having filled the other details in the cheque in question. The accused opted to lead defence evidence by stating that he does not owe the cheque liability and he will depose his defence during the defence evidence stage.
12. Vide order dt. 16.12.2024, upon submission of ld counsel for the accused that he does not wish to lead DE in the present matter, the DE was closed.
13. Final arguments were led by both the parties. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the case of the complainant is proved and the cheque is also in the favour of the complainant, therefore, the accused must be convicted and the amount should be recovered. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that the complainant has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
14. I have heard ld counsel for the complainant and Ld. Defence counsel for the accused & considered the respective arguments as well as gone through the case file very carefully.
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 7 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09 17:04:00 +0530
15. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence as laid down by Hon'ble supreme court in Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel(2022) 11 SCC 705 :
1. First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
2. Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
3. Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
4. Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
5. Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
16. It is settled law that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Presumption under section 139 of NI act is raised in favour of the complainant. The presumption raised is a rebuttable presumption and the onus on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting, the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. [Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (AIR 2019 SC 1983) See also Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513] CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 8 Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09 17:04:07 +0530
17. The phrase "unless the contrary is proved" u/s 139 is of vital importance clarifying that the rebuttal of the presumption has to be supported by proof and not mere plausible explanation. The liberty is granted to the accused to either rely on evidence led by him in his support or the material relied by the complainant to raise his probable defence. In addition to the materials brought on record, the circumstances relied upon can also draw the inference of preponderance of probability lying in the favour of the accused.
18. In the case at hand, the proof of the first and third ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheque (Ex. CW1/B), which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within the validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo (Ex. CW1/C) due to the reason, "funds insufficient", which falls strictly within the purview of section 138 NI Act. As such, on the basis of the above, the first and third ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
19. With regard to the fourth and fifth ingredient, the complainant has proved on record legal notice Ex. CW1/D and postal receipt Ex. CW1/E. The postal receipt Ex. CW1/E was addressed to the accused and sent by the counsel for the complainant dated 19.02.2022, which confirms the delivery of the same at the 'Seelampur SO' on 30.07.2021. The accused has admitted the receipt of the legal demand notice in his Notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC but denied the receipt of the same in his Statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid denial was not raised during the stage of cross-examination of the CW1 and final arguments and therefore, upon admission of the accused u/s 251 Cr.PC & s CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 9 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.04.09 17:04:13 +0530 294 Cr.PC, the complainant has proved the delivery of Legal demand notice. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed. Therefore, the fourth ingredient and the fifth ingredient of the offence shall stand proved.
20. The accused in the present case has relied on the following line of main defences to rebut the presumption:
A. The blank signed cheque was misused by the complainant B. Accused has repaid the substantial loan amount to the complainant company.
20.1 To analyse these defences in the right perspective, the following Issues need to be adjudicated:
i) Whether the accused issued his blank signed cheque to the complainant
ii) Whether the impugned cheque is in discharge of his outstanding liability of Rs 7,00,000 BLANK SIGNED CHEQUE
21. The first defence taken by the accused is the cheque in question was his blank signed cheque, which was issued to the complainant at the time of disbursement of the loan amount of Rs 7,00,000 but the complainant company has misused his cheque by filling the particulars of the same before presenting it.
21.1 Section 20 of the NI Act talks about inchoate instruments. As per this provision if a person gives a duly signed cheque which is either blank or partly filled then he is deemed to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particular in it and complete the cheque, thus making the drawer liable for the payment mentioned in it. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 10 Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09 17:04:19 +0530 cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision of section 138 would be attracted 21.2 On this point, it is profitable to mention the judgment of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1174 , wherein it has been held that merely because a cheque has been issued for only security purposes will not absolve the accused from the liability u/s. 138 NI Act. It has been further held that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the accused would very much be liable u/s. 138 NI Act for issuance of a security cheque also, if on the date of the presentation of such cheque, there has not been a prior discharge of debt, or if the cheque has not been given towards advance payment, the goods in respect of which have not been received by the other party, or if other than this there has been change in circumstances which precludes the complainant from depositing the cheque with the bank.
22. In the present case, it is the complainant's version that the cheque in question was issued by the accused upon the persistent requests and demands by the complainant after multiple defaults were made by the accused qua the alleged loan. It is the specific version of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the accused for the discharge of his liability for Rs. 7,00,000.
22.1 In Ergo, the stance of the accused during his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC is that his blank signed cheque was misused by the complainant as he had repaid certain amount to the complainant company and he is not CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 11 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.04.09 17:04:30 +0530 liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. He further pleads that the impugned blank signed cheque was issued at the time of advancement of the loan amount of Rs 7,00,000 and the particulars of the cheque have not been filled by him.
22.2 As discussed, even in case of blank signed cheques, the statutory presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 would be raised in favour of the complainant. Therefore, in an instant case, since, the accused has admitted the execution of impugned cheque, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
IMPUGNED CHEQUE WAS IN DISCHARGE OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS 1,72,222
23. In the Complaint and PSE affidavit Ex.CW1/A, the complainant alleged that the accused had issued the impugned cheque in question to the complainant, in lieu of his legal liability of the outstanding loan amount. At this stage, the documents pertaining to the legal liability of the accused require thoughtful and careful analysis.
24. The perusal of the documents filed on behalf of the complainant reflects that the copy of certificate of incorporation resolution (Mark A), as per which the complainant company has been incorporated under the Company's Act,1956. No dispute has been raised by the accused to dispute the origin of the complainant company.
24.1 The power of Attorney (Ex. CW1/A) executed on 12.01.2021 in favour of Sh. Gyan Singh authorizing him to file cases as the authorised representative of the company to appear and plead in any Criminal Court on behalf of the company. The document has been notarised in Mumbai, CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 12 Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA 17:04:36 Date: 2025.04.09 +0530 Maharashtra and duly signed by the Executive Director. A letter of Authorization was executed in the favour of Mr. Gyan Singh. 24.2 It has been argued on the behalf of the Accused that the aforesaid SPA (Ex.CW1/A) is not a legal document as the document has been notarised without the presence of the CW1 i.e. AR of the company and further the AR has not signed the aforesaid SPA.
The reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2014 SC 630, wherein it was observed that It that authorizing a person to file a complaint requires execution of special power of attorney/general power of attorney in favour of that person and if it is a special power of attorney, it should specifically provide the details of the case and the powers which has been given to the attorney.
24.3 In cases of the large transactions, Power of Attorney (POA) is a potent option because POA sets out the manner in which an action is to be carried out. In addition, POA is a notarized certificate, which authenticates the document. Further, Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 raises presumption as to power of attorney that every document purporting to be a power- of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary was so executed and authenticated.
24.4 Thereby, the merely because the AR for the company was not present at the time of notarization or absence of his signature on the POA does not render the CW(POA) as invalid document. Hence, the AR of the company Sh. Gyan Singh is a competent witness to depose on the behalf of the complainant
25. It has been further argued on the behalf of the accused that the AR for the company (CW1) does not have the personal knowledge of the transaction in question.
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 13
Digitally signed by
RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA
SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09
17:04:46 +0530
25.1 The reference is made to cross-examination dated 08.11.2023
and 11.07.2024 in this regard. During his cross-examination, CW1 has admitted that he does not have the requisite knowledge as to whether the fact deposed by him that the accused approached the complainant company in year 2018 for loan of Rs 10,00,000 has been averred in the complaint or PSE affidavit or not but states that it has been specifically averred that the accused was given loan of Rs 7,00,000 for the vehicle bearing no. UP19T4177. Upon confrontation with the judicial file, he admits that even this factum does not form part of the complaint or PSE affidavit. As to the date of granting the aforesaid loan, CW1 does not remember the exact date on which the alleged loan was disbursed. CW1 admitted that the Loan account statement has not been filed in the judicial file but he produced the Loan account statement vide the same day and it was taken on record as Mark A. Upon confrontation with Mark A, the accused admitted that Rs 4,17,019 has been repaid by the accused. Vide further cross-examination dated 11.07.2024, Qua the legal liability of the accused, CW1 admitted that no loan agreement has been attached with the judicial file. Therefore, it is concluded that CW1 being the AR for the complainant did not possess the personal knowledge of the transaction in question The reliance in this regard is placed upon recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerela in Padma Conductors Pvt. Ltd vs Mirc Electronics on 7 February, 2024 as follows:
"In so far as the initial burden cast upon the complainant, in a prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is concerned, the same shall be discharged by proving the transaction which led to execution of the cheque. In the instant case, obviously, the transaction was prior to the appointment of PW1 in the company. So he had no direct knowledge regarding the transaction. Holding the view that since the complainant is a company, it may be difficult to examine the persons who had direct knowledge with regard to the transaction, then also, the burden to prove the issuance and execution of the cheque with certainty, would be upon the complainant and for which somebody who witnessed issuance and execution of the cheque should have been examined.
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 14 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09 17:04:53 +0530
17. Even though the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused 1, 2 and 6 is that, PW1 examined in this case is the power of attorney holder, who had no direct knowledge, in fact, PW1 is not the power of attorney holder of the company. However, in order to prove the transaction led to execution of the a cheque, somebody who should have direct knowledge regarding the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque must be examined. When the complainant limits the evidence as that of an officer of a company, who did not have any direct knowledge regarding the transaction and he did not witness the execution of the cheque, the evidence is insufficient to discharge the initial burden cast upon the complainant. So, it could not be held that the complainant succeeded in discharging his initial burden, to avail the benefit of presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act."
26. In correspondence, the bank account statement (Mark 3)of the accused for the period ending 09/11/2023 reflects that payment of Rs 4,17,019 till 09.11.2023 towards the principal amount of Rs 7,00,000 for loan dated 30.04.2018. The corresponding Column of Arrears due as on 09.11.2023 was reflecting Rs 40,88,687, whereas, undisputedly the original vehicle loan was for Rs 7,00,000. The aforesaid figure of arrears has reached after combining summary of loan accounts of different six Loan no. for the same vehicle. Further, default penal interest has been charged on all these loan accounts, which is impermissible as per the RBI guidelines. 26.1 The aforesaid loan ledger statement (Mark 3) is fallacious in nature as it is in direct contradistinction with the rules framed by RBI for the grant of loan by the financial Institutions in this regard. Further, it strengthens the defence of the accused as stated in the plea of defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C that he has paid approximately substantial amount qua the alleged loan. Therefore, the complainant has failed to reflect legal liability of Rs 7,00,000 against the accused.
26.2 The issuance of the security cheque by the accused would only make the accused liable for the legally enforceable amount and not for the exorbitant amount, as charged by the complainant company.
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 15
Digitally signed
RAVISHA by RAVISHA
SIDANA
SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09
17:05:06 +0530
27. In view of the above discussion, the accused has successfully been able to show on the basis of evidence on record that the accused has repaid the substantial amount of loan and he is not liable to pay the Cheque amount, as was filled by the complainant company as he had no outstanding liability of Rs 7,00,000 towards the complainant company.
FINAL ORDER
28. It is also imperative to understand that in order to pronounce a conviction in a criminal case, the accused 'must be' guilty and not merely 'may be' guilty. For an accused to be guilty, guilt should not be based on mere surmises and conjectures but it should be based on cogent evidence.
Ratio: In light of above facts and circumstances, the accused has probabilized his defence by exposing gaping holes in the case of the Complainant. The case of the complainant is not made out as they have not been able to show the existence of liability of the accused to the amount mentioned on the cheque in question and the ingredient no. (ii) could not be proved. The same was fatal to the case of the complainant.
29. In the result of the analysis of the present case, the accused Amit Kumar is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
30. This judgment contains 16 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
Digitally signed by
RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA
Announced in the open Court SIDANA Date: 2025.04.09
17:05:23 +0530
on 09.04.2025 (RAVISHA SIDANA)
JMFC-NI ACT (DIGITAL COURT)
NORTH EAST;KKD COURTS;DELHI
09.04.2025
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 16
CC NO.647/2021 SRTF vs Amit Kumar Page 17