Delhi District Court
Resmed India Pvt Ltd vs K Ramesh on 13 January, 2026
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI
ACT-02), SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI
(Presided over by Ms. Shruti Sharma-I)
DLSE020014782017
Criminal Complaint No. 1047/2017
M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. ....................... Complainant
Vs.
K. Ramesh .......................Accused
Sr.No Particulars Details
A. Name and address of M/s ResMed India Pvt. Ltd.
the Complainant: Office at 205, 2nd Floor, Southern Park, D-2,
District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
B. Name and address of Sh. K. Ramesh S/o Sh. Koteshwar Rao
the Accused. Kolluru,
Proprietor of Ms Biomed Healthcare,
R/o House no. 59/14/7, Ramachandra Nagar,
Opposite Stella College, Vijayawada,
Krishna, Andhra Pradesh - 520008 .
C. Offence complained of U/s 138 NIAct
D. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
E. Final order Acquittal
F. Date of institution 31.01.2017
G. Date of pronouncement 13.01.2026
Page no.1/33 Digitally signed
SHRUTI by SHRUTI
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13
16:45:49 +0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
JUDGMENT
1. This Court, by the present detailed judgment, adjudicates the complaint instituted by M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Authorised Representative (AR) Sh. Ashish Kumar Matta (hereinafter "Complainant"). The complaint targets K. Ramesh (Accused), the Proprietor of M/s Biomed Healthcare (collectively "Accused"), for offences punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act"). The prosecution stems from the dishonour of one specific cheque issued by the Accused in purported discharge of a legally enforceable debt: (i) Cheque No. 311155 dated 18.11.2016 for Rs. 60,00,000/-; drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Ring Road Branch, 40-9-27, Ring Road, Near Benz Circle, Vijayawada - 520008. This cheque, handed over as part- payment of an accumulated liability from goods supplied, was presented for encashment via HSBC Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi, but returned unpaid on 20.11.2016 with the bank endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Despite statutory legal demand notice dated 19.12.2016 served on 21.12.2016 and the Accused's failure to remit payment within the prescribed 15-day window, the cause of action crystallized, warranting invocation of NI Act's penal provisions.
2. The complainant, Ms. ResMed India Private Limited (CIN:
U85110DL2007FTC157447) is a company engaged in manufacturing respiratory and sleep disorder equipment. Accused approached complainant for supply of 95 units of Astral 100 APAC1 27081 ventilators with standard accessories at Rs. 2,64,000/- per unit, totalling Rs. 2,55,81,600/-, for supply to Andhra Pradesh Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC) under tender No. 6.25BAPMSIDC2014-15 dated 11.02.2015. Complainant confirmed after-sales service support by accused firm vide letter dated 17.04.2015. Accused placed purchase orders dated 18.12.2015 and 30.12.2015. Parties executed agreement dated 30.12.2015, modified by agreement dated 17.03.2016 executed Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.2/33 SHRUTI Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.13
16:45:51
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
at New Delhi, wherein accused agreed to pay outstanding Rs. 2,55,81,600/- within 30 days, with 1.5% monthly interest on delay, issuing four post-dated cheques Nos. 311152 to 311155. Complainant dispatched machines via Blue Dart on 18.03.2016, duly delivered to accused at Vijayawada (Mark-G Colly). Despite reminders (Mark-H Colly; Ex.CW19 Colly), accused failed to pay. Legal demand notice dated 22.11.2016 (Ex.CW110 Colly) yielded no payment. The cheque in question was presented for payment against the liability towards the aforesaid transaction.
3. To the Complainant's profound dismay, the cheque dishonoured upon presentment, evincing insufficient funds in the drawer's account--a fact corroborated by original return memo. Preceding assurances from the Accused notwithstanding, post-dishonour communications yielded only temporizing excuses and hollow pledges of imminent settlement. This pattern of evasion underscored a lack of genuine intent to honour the instruments.
4. Adhering scrupulously to Section 138 NI Act, the Complainant's counsel dispatched a comprehensive legal demand notice dated 19.12.2016 via speed post and email to the Accused's declared addresses. The notice categorically demanded repayment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt. Postal receipts confirm dispatch, with deemed service thereafter. The Accused's resounding silence, no payment, no rebuttal, fortified the presumption of liability under Section 139 NI Act.
5. The complainant contends that the deliberate issuance of cheques foreseeably unbacked by funds, their dishonour for insufficiency, and defiant non-compliance post-notice collectively constitute wilful default. This sequence repudiates any defence of bona fides, portraying calculated circumvention of a proven commercial obligation, squarely indictable under Section 138 NI Act. The complainant further avers that the Complainant's unimpugned averments and Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.3/33 SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:45:53 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh documents establish the foundational ingredients: a cheque issued in debt discharge, dishonour for funds shortage, and failed notice redressal.
6. Upon a careful perusal of the material placed on record along with the complaint, and after due examination of the complainant by way of pre-summoning evidence in accordance with the mandate of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The evidence adduced at the pre-summoning stage sufficiently disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable liability and the issuance of the cheques in question by the accused towards its discharge, followed by its dishonour due to insufficiency of funds. Accordingly, vide order dated 21.04.2017, this Court was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to face trial for the alleged dishonour of cheque issued in discharge of a debt or liability, as contemplated under the statutory scheme of the NI Act.
7. The accused appeared on 06.02.2018 with his counsel, and was granted bail by this Court on the very same date. Pursuant to the grant of bail, the accused was directed to furnish requisite bail bonds, and accordingly, he had furnished his bail bonds which were accepted. Subsequently, upon satisfaction that a prima facie case existed warranting trial, this Court proceeded to frame notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC), which was duly served upon the accused on 22.07.2019. Upon being apprised of the substance of accusation, including the specific allegations pertaining to issuance and dishonour of the cheques in question, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, thereby necessitating the recording of evidence in the matter in accordance with law.
8. Thereafter, in support of its case, the complainant adopted his pre-summoning evidence and tendered his evidence affidavit. Further more, the complainant Digitally signed Page no.4/33 SHRUTI by SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 16:45:54 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh examined only one witness as CW-1. CW1/ AR Sh. Ashish Kumar Matta entered the witness box and relied on the following documents in support of his case:-
Sr. No. Exhibits Particulars
1. Ex.CW-1/A Evidence Affidavit
2. Ex.CW-1/1 Extract of the Board Resolution dated
11.11.2016 passed by the Board of
Directors of ResMed India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Ex.CW-1/2 Special Power of Attorney dated
30.01.2017 in favour of the deponent.
4. Mark A Copy of letter dated 06.01.2016 issued by
APMSIDC to M/s Biomed Health
Care/accused along with annexures
(certified true copy).
5. Mark-B (Colly.) Copy of CST and TIN details of the ac-
cused (certified true copy).
6. Ex.CW-1/3 (Colly.) Dealership recommendation form signed
(OSR) by accused along with PAN details.
7. Ex.CW-1/4 (Colly.) Application form for dealership in favour
(OSR) of the accused.
8. Ex.CW-1/5 ( (OSR) Letter of appointment as Authorised Dealer
issued by complainant to accused along
with other dealership forms.
9. Mark-C Copy of letter dated 17.04.2015.
Page no.5/33 Digitally signed
SHRUTI by SHRUTI
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13
16:45:56 +0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
10. Mark-D Copy of purchase order dated 18.12.2015.
11. Ex. CW-1/6 Copy of purchase order dated 30.12.2015.
12. Mark-E Copy of letter dated 16.03.2016 issued by
M/s Biomed Healthcare to Finance Officer,
APMSIDC furnishing bank account details
(certified true copy).
13. Mark-F Copy of letter dated 17.03.2016 issued by
M/s Biomed Healthcare to Branch
Manager, Indian Overseas Bank to freeze
current account no. 106702000002124
(certified true copy).
14. Ex.CW-1/7 (Colly.) Copy of agreements dated 30.12.2015 and
(OSR) 17.03.2016.
15. Mark-G (Colly.) Courier receipts dated 18.03.2016 along
with proof of delivery.
16. Ex. CW-1/8 (OSR) Invoices dated 31.12.2015 and 08.01.2016
along with ledger account of complainant.
17. Mark- H (Colly.) Reminder letters dated 18.07.2016,
01.08.2016, 30.08.2016 exchanged
between accused and complainant.
18. Ex. CW-1/9 (Colly.) Copies of emails exchanged between accused and complainant.
19. Ex. CW-1/10 (Colly.) Legal notice dated 22.11.2016 along with proof of delivery.
Digitally
signed by
SHRUTI
Page no.6/33 SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13
16:45:58
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
20. Ex. CW-1/11 (Colly.) Cheque No. 311155 along with return memo.
21. Ex. CW-1/12 (Colly). Legal notice dated 19.12.2016 sent via email and speed post along with proof of delivery.
22. Ex.CW-1/13 Certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, issued by Mr. Kamal Kishore, Business Manager, ResMed India Pvt. Ltd.
23. Ex.CW-1/14 Certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, issued by counsel for the complainant.
9. The aforesaid stage was thereafter followed by an extensive examination-in-chief of CW-1, who was subjected to a detailed and searching cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Upon completion of such cross-examination, and no further questions remaining to be put to the witness by either side, CW-1 was formally discharged by the Court on the very same day, i.e., 04.11.2022, in accordance with law.
10. Upon completion of the complainant evidence and as the complainant did not wish to examine any other witness, hence the matter fixed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC and subsequent to the conclusion of the complainant's evidence, and in compliance with the procedural mandate under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the statement of the accused was recorded by the Court on 23.11.2022, thereby affording him an opportunity to personally Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.7/33 SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:45:59 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.
11. Thereafter, the accused was afforded a full and fair opportunity to lead evidence in defence. DW 1/Sh. Deevi Ratnakar was examined in chief on 17.12.2024 and was further examined on 15.02.2025. Thereafter, he was cross- examined on 15.02.2025 in part and was further cross-examined on 24.11.2025. Accused did not wish to examine any other witness and consequently, the right of the accused to lead further defence evidence was closed, and the matter was accordingly directed to proceed to the stage of final arguments.
Final Arguments
12. Thereafter, this Court heard and considered the final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties on 20.12.2025. Upon conclusion of the said submissions, the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment.
13. The complainant submits that the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises out of the dishonour of cheque bearing No. 311155 dated 18.11.2016 for a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-, drawn by the accused on Indian Overseas Bank, which was returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
14. It is argued that the complainant is a duly incorporated company engaged in the business of respiratory and sleep disorder equipment, while the accused is the proprietor of M/s Biomed Health Care, who entered into a commercial arrangement with the complainant for supply of 95 units of ASTRAL 100 ventilators intended for APMSIDC under the tender dated 11.02.2015. Pursuant thereto, purchase orders dated 18.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 were placed, followed by execution of agreements dated 30.12.2015 and subsequently a modified agreement dated 17.03.2016 at New Delhi.
Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.8/33 SHRUTI Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.13
16:46:01
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
15. As per the agreement dated 17.03.2016, the accused issued four cheques bearing Nos. 311152 to 311155 aggregating to Rs. 2,55,81,600/-, undertaking to clear the outstanding liability within 30 days, failing which interest @ 1.5% per month was payable. The complainant duly supplied the machines on 18.03.2016 through Blue Dart, which were delivered to the accused at Vijayawada. Despite repeated demands, the accused failed to make payment.
16. A legal notice dated 22.11.2016 demanding the entire outstanding amount was sent, followed by presentation of cheque No. 311155 for Rs. 60,00,000/- in partial discharge of liability, which was dishonoured. Thereafter, statutory notice dated 19.12.2016 under Section 138 NI Act was duly issued and served on 21.12.2016, yet the accused failed to pay within the stipulated period, giving rise to the present cause of action. It is contended that all the essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act stand fulfilled, the complaint is within limitation, and this Court has territorial jurisdiction.
17. The complainant further argues that the conduct of the accused throughout the trial reflects a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Despite repeated opportunities, the accused failed to lead defence evidence, resulting in closure of his right to do so vide orders dated 10.04.2023 and again 10.07.2025. Though an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed on 09.05.2023, the accused misused the opportunity merely to prolong the matter.
18. At the stage of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 22.07.2019, the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque and the return memo, leading to dropping of bank witnesses. In view of such admission and absence of any defence evidence, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act remain unrebutted. Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHARMA SHRUTI Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.13
16:46:03
+0530
Page no.9/33
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
19. Reliance is placed on Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad, to contend that the agreements relied upon sufficiently establish the underlying transaction and liability. Further reliance is placed on Sri Sujies Benefit Funds Ltd. v. M. Jaganathuan (2024) to rebut the defence that the cheques were post-dated or not meant to be encashed, asserting that once issuance and signatures are admitted, the accused was duty-bound to seek return of cheques or issue stop-payment instructions, which was never done.
20. It is thus argued that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions and no plausible defence has been raised. Accordingly, the complainant prays that the accused be held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
21. The accused contends that the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a misuse of criminal process, seeking to colour a purely commercial and contractual dispute as a criminal offence. It is argued that the complainant has indulged in forum shopping with the sole intention of pressurising and harassing the accused.
22. The defence submits that the transaction between the parties arose out of a government tender floated by APMSIDC for procurement of ASTRAL 100 ventilators. The accused approached the complainant only after being awarded the tender, and the complainant was fully aware that payments were contingent upon compliance with tender specifications and acceptance by APMSIDC. Agreements dated 30.12.2015 and subsequently 17.03.2016 governed the transaction, with the latter modifying commercial terms and expressly recording the issuance of cheques as security cheques.
23. It is argued that as per the agreement dated 17.03.2016, the cheques were deposited only as security, and the liability of the accused was conditional upon Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.10/33 SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:05 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh successful delivery, technical compliance, and acceptance of the machines under the APMSIDC tender. According to the accused, the liability never crystallised since the ventilators supplied were defective and unsuitable for emergency transport use, contrary to tender requirements. Reliance is placed on internal manuals, emails, and a Field Safety Notification issued by the complainant itself, allegedly admitting that the machines were intended for home and hospital use and had battery-related safety issues.
24. The accused submits that due to these defects, APMSIDC did not release payments, a fact that was continuously communicated to the complainant. In the absence of acceptance certificates, delivery completion documents, or proof of payment from APMSIDC, it is argued that no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of presentation of the cheque. The complainant's failure to produce such crucial documents, according to the defence, warrants an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
25. A specific plea is raised that the cheque in question bearing No. 311155 was a post-dated security cheque, and its particulars were mentioned in the agreement with a different date. The accused alleges that the complainant forged and misused the cheque by altering its date and filling in particulars without authority or consent, amounting to material alteration. It is contended that the cheque was prematurely presented on 18.11.2016, despite unresolved disputes regarding defective supply and non-release of government funds.
26. The defence further submits that there was no dishonest intention or mens rea on the part of the accused. It is asserted that the accused acted bona fide, maintained transparency by requesting APMSIDC to remit payments directly to the complainant, and even instructed the bank to freeze the account until such remittance. The accused never denied liability but consistently maintained that Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.11/33 SHARMA SHRUTI Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.13
16:46:11
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
payment obligations would arise only after fulfilment of tender conditions and release of funds by APMSIDC.
27. It is argued that the essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are not satisfied, as the cheque was not issued in discharge of a crystallised and legally enforceable debt, and no liability was due on the date of its presentation. Reliance is placed on judicial precedents to submit that dishonour of a security cheque, in the absence of enforceable liability, does not attract Section 138 NI Act.
28. The accused also highlights alleged contradictions in the complainant's evidence, particularly the cross-examination of CW-1, where it was claimed that the machinery was in good condition, which is stated to be contrary to earlier email communications acknowledging deficiencies. On these grounds, the accused prays that the complaint be dismissed as being devoid of merit, arising out of an unresolved commercial dispute, and constituting an abuse of the process of law.
Legal Analysis & Findings:-
29. I have heard at considerable length the detailed arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the learned counsel representing the accused. Their respective submissions have been carefully analysed in the context of the factual matrix and the legal principles applicable to the case. This Court has also undertaken a thorough and meticulous scrutiny of the entire judicial record, which includes the contents of the complaint, the affidavits and supporting documents annexed thereto, the oral testimonies of the complainant's and the defence witnesses, if any, recorded during the course of trial, and all exhibits relied upon by the respective parties. Each piece of evidence has been examined individually as well as in conjunction with the other evidence on record so as to assess its evidentiary value, credibility, and probative strength. The rival submissions have been objectively evaluated against the backdrop of the statutory Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.12/33 SHRUTI Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.13
16:46:14
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
framework and the well-settled legal position governing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court has, therefore, endeavored to reach a reasoned and just determination by adopting a holistic and balanced appreciation of the evidence and circumstances presented before it.
30. Before embarking upon a discussion on the merits of the present case, it is considered apposite to first delineate the legal framework governing the offence of dishonour of cheque, as encapsulated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The legislative intent behind enacting Section 138 is to instill greater financial discipline and sanctity in contractual obligations by deterring the issuance of cheques without sufficient funds or without adequate arrangements with the banker. The provision prescribes penal consequences in the event of dishonor of a cheque on grounds of insufficiency of funds or if the amount exceeds the arrangement with the bank, thereby recognizing the cheque as a legitimate instrument of payment in the eyes of the law.
31. In order to fasten criminal liability upon an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is incumbent upon the complainant to plead and prove the existence of certain foundational ingredients through the averments made in the complaint and the evidence led during the course of trial. The essential ingredients that must be cumulatively satisfied are as follows:
a.That the accused must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him with a banker, for the payment of a certain sum of money to another person, and such payment must have been intended for the discharge, in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or other liability;
b.That the said cheque must have been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it was drawn, or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.13/33 SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:17 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh c.That upon such presentation, the cheque must have been returned unpaid by the bank, either due to insufficiency of funds in the drawer's account or because the amount exceeded the arrangement made by the drawer with the bank;
d.That the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque must have issued a written statutory demand notice to the drawer, seeking payment of the cheque amount, within 30 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque unpaid;
e.That the drawer of the cheque, despite the receipt of such legal notice, failed to make payment of the cheque amount to the payee or holder in due course within 15 days from the date of such receipt.
32. Only upon proof of the aforementioned ingredients does the offence under Section 138 stand attracted, subject to the operation of statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. These presumptions, however, are rebuttable and impose a reverse burden upon the accused to dislodge the same on a preponderance of probabilities.
33. It is also pertinent to note that, as per the Explanation appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the expression "debt or other liability" refers exclusively to a legally enforceable debt or other liability. This legal clarification is of critical significance, as it makes clear that mere issuance of a cheque is not sufficient to attract penal liability under the statute. The dishonoured cheque must have been issued in discharge of a debt or liability which is subsisting and legally enforceable at the time of its issuance. A cheque issued as a gift, donation, or towards a time-barred or non-existent liability will not fall within the purview of Section 138. Thus, the complainant must establish that at the time the cheque was Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.14/33 SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:19 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh drawn, there existed a valid and enforceable obligation in law for which the cheque was issued.
34. It is well-settled in law that the aforementioned ingredients must co-exist and be satisfied cumulatively in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The absence or non-fulfilment of even one of these statutory requirements is fatal to the prosecution's case and would disentitle the complainant from invoking penal liability against the drawer of the cheque.
35. CW-1, Mr. Ashish Kumar Matta, Finance Manager of the complainant company M/s ResMed India Private Limited, deposed that the complainant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Southern Park, Saket, New Delhi, and is engaged in the business of respiratory and sleep disorder equipment. He stated that he is the authorised representative of the complainant by virtue of a Board Resolution dated 11.11.2016 and a Special Power of Attorney dated 30.01.2017 executed in his favour.
36. CW-1 deposed that the accused K. Ramesh, proprietor of M/s Biomed Health Care, approached the complainant for supply of 95 units of ASTRAL 100 ventilators with accessories, intended for supply to APMSIDC under Tender No. 6.25B/APMSIDC/2014-15 dated 11.02.2015. Pursuant to the request of the accused, the complainant also confirmed to APMSIDC vide letter dated 17.04.2015 that the accused's firm would provide service support across Andhra Pradesh.
37. He stated that purchase orders dated 18.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 were placed by the accused for the said ventilators at the rate of Rs. 2,64,000/- per unit, aggregating to Rs. 2,55,81,600/-, and an agreement dated 30.12.2015 was executed between the parties. Thereafter, a modified agreement dated 17.03.2016 was Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.15/33 SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:21 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh executed at New Delhi, whereby the accused agreed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,55,81,600/- within 30 days, failing which interest @ 1.5% per month was payable. In terms of the said agreement, the accused issued four cheques bearing Nos. 311152 to 311155 for the total outstanding amount.
38. CW-1 further deposed that the complainant dispatched the machines on 18.03.2016 through Blue Dart from Delhi, which were duly delivered to the accused at Vijayawada. Despite repeated requests made personally, telephonically and through emails, the accused failed to clear the outstanding dues. Consequently, a legal notice dated 22.11.2016 demanding the entire outstanding amount was sent to the accused, but no payment was made.
39. He stated that thereafter, in partial discharge of liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 311155 dated 18.11.2016 for Rs. 60,00,000/-, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, which upon presentation was returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 20.11.2016. CW-1 deposed that the accused had malafide intention from the inception and had issued post-dated cheques without intention to honour the same.
40. CW-1 further stated that the complainant, through counsel, issued the statutory legal notice dated 19.12.2016 under Section 138 of the NI Act to the accused through speed post and email, which was duly served on 21.12.2016, but the accused failed to make payment within the stipulated period of 15 days. Hence, the present complaint was filed within limitation.
41. He also deposed that the cheque in question was presented through the complainant's banker, HSBC Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and that no other complaint has been filed in respect of the same cheque.
Digitally
signed by
SHRUTI
SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13
Page no.16/33 16:46:22
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
42. Accordingly, CW-1 asserted that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt, its dishonour attracted the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the accused is liable to be convicted.
43. During cross-examination, CW-1 stated that the accused had approached the complainant for the business deal in November-December 2015 and had contacted the Sales Head of the complainant company. He deposed that there were about three cheques initially given by the accused, though he could not recall their exact numbers and stated that the same were mentioned in the first agreement Ex. CW-1/7 (colly.). He further stated that those cheques were returned as per the terms of the second agreement.
44. CW-1 asserted that there was no deficiency in the products supplied and denied the suggestion that the machines were defective. He stated that he had no idea whether the payment received by M/s Biomed Healthcare from APMSIDC pertained to some other dealing. He expressed uncertainty about the exact date of execution of the second agreement, though he admitted being aware of its existence.
45. When confronted with Annexure-I to the agreement, CW-1 stated that he was not aware of its contents and would need to see the document to confirm. He categorically denied the suggestion that the cheque in question bore the date 31.03.2016 as per Annexure-I and that the date was later fabricated as 18.11.2016 for presentation. He maintained that cheque Ex. CW-1/11 bears the date 18.11.2016.
46. CW-1 deposed that the cheque in question was handed over by the accused in his presence and denied that it was issued as a security cheque, asserting that it was issued towards discharge of liability. He further stated that the products were Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.17/33 SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:24 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh delivered in time, though he admitted that he did not remember the agreed date of delivery.
47. He stated that he had no knowledge that due to late delivery of products, payment to the accused was withheld by APMSIDC, and further admitted that he did not remember meeting the accused for the business transaction. He acknowledged that the complainant had authorised the accused to deal with APMSIDC for the project in question, but stated that he did not remember whether the complainant company was following up with APMSIDC for payments to be made to the accused.
48. CW-1 expressed ignorance regarding the letters dated 16.03.2016 (Mark-E) addressed to the Finance Officer, APMSIDC, and 17.03.2016 to the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, seeking remittance/freezing of the account for payment. He stated that he had been associated with the complainant company for about 12 years, initially as Financial Controller and presently as Director.
49. He denied that any concern regarding deficiency in the products was ever brought to the knowledge of the complainant company. He also stated that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed with the complaint was not signed by him, and that he had not sent any email relied upon by the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
50. Insofar as the statutory ingredients (b), (c), (d), and (e) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are concerned--namely, (b) the presentation of the cheque within its validity period, (c) its dishonour by the bank due to insufficiency of funds, (d) the issuance of a legal demand notice within 30 days of receiving intimation of dishonour, and (e) the drawer's failure to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the said notice--this Court finds that the complainant has successfully discharged the burden of proof in respect thereof. These facts stand duly established through unimpeached documentary evidence placed on record, which includes the original cheque, the cheque return memo, the legal Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.18/33 SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:25 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh demand notice, the postal receipts confirming dispatch. There is no rebuttal to the presumption of service, and hence, the requirements under clauses (b) to (e) of Section 138 stand conclusively fulfilled.
51. It is also not in dispute that the accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount to the complainant within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal demand notice. The record clearly reflects that the notice was dispatched to the accused, as evidenced by the postal receipts placed on record.. Hence, service of the legal notice stands proved. Despite being afforded the statutory opportunity under the mandate of Section 138 of the NI Act, the accused did not tender the cheque amount within the prescribed period of 15 days, thereby fulfilling the last statutory condition for attracting penal liability under the said provision.
52. The Court shall now proceed to examine the most crucial ingredient under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which constitutes the very foundation of the present prosecution--namely, whether the impugned cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. This aspect is of paramount significance, as the existence of such a liability is the sine qua non for attracting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
53. In this background, this Court now undertakes a detailed and careful evaluation of the rival contentions and the evidence on record, to determine whether the said essential ingredient stands proved to the requisite standard in the present matter.
54. It is well-settled that once the complainant establishes that the cheque was drawn by the accused and that it was returned unpaid, a presumption arises under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The initial burden upon the complainant is merely to prove the foundational facts--namely, the execution and dishonour of Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.19/33 SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:27 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh the cheque. Once this is done, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption. Such rebuttal may be established either by leading positive evidence or by pointing out inconsistencies, improbabilities, or material contradictions in the complainant's case, which may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the alleged liability.
55. For ready reference, the relevant provisions are reproduced as under:
Section 118(a), NI Act - "Presumptions as to negotiable instruments:
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
(a) of consideration--that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
Section 139, NI Act - "Presumption in favour of holder: 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, of any debt or other liability.
56. This presumption, though statutory, is rebuttable in nature. The law places the initial evidentiary burden upon the accused to dislodge this presumption by raising a probable defence. It is now well-settled that the accused is not required to rebut the presumption beyond reasonable doubt; rather, the standard of rebuttal is that of preponderance of probabilities. The accused may discharge this burden either by adducing direct evidence or by relying on material inconsistencies, improbabilities, or contradictions in the complainant's case, elicited during cross- examination or otherwise. However, unless such rebuttal is successfully established, the presumption continues to operate in favour of the complainant.
Digitally
signed by
SHRUTI
SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no.20/33 2026.01.13
16:46:28
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
57. This is a classic illustration of the principle of 'reverse onus' in operation, wherein the statutory scheme obligates the accused to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant by leading what may be termed as 'negative evidence'. The accused is not required to affirmatively prove a particular fact; rather, he must bring on record material to demonstrate the non-existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
58. Since this reverse burden deviates from the general principle of criminal jurisprudence--namely, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused-- the law has correspondingly tempered the standard of rebuttal. Recognizing the inherent difficulty in leading negative evidence, the standard prescribed is not that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance of probabilities. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangappa v. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the accused need not conclusively disprove the existence of consideration or liability; it is sufficient if he can raise a probable defence which renders the existence of such liability doubtful or improbable in the mind of the Court.
59. In order to discharge the burden cast upon him under the reverse onus clause, the accused is required to either prove the non-existence of the alleged liability or demonstrate that the existence of such liability is so improbable or doubtful that a prudent person would conclude that no such obligation existed. This can be achieved by the accused either by leading direct evidence or relying upon circumstantial evidence in his defense. Alternatively, the accused may choose to effectively challenge the complainant's case by eliciting material contradictions or inconsistencies during cross-examination, thereby undermining the credibility of the prosecution's version.
60. If the accused succeeds in creating such a doubt, the burden then shifts back to the complainant, who must establish the existence of liability independent of the statutory presumptions. In such a scenario, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) Digitally signed Page no.21/33 SHRUTI by SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 16:46:30 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh and 139 of the NI Act would cease to operate in favour of the complainant and cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof. The complainant would then have to establish the liability on the strength of his own evidence.
61. In the light of the foregoing statutory provisions and the settled principles of law governing the operation and rebuttal of presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court shall now proceed to critically examine the defense set up by the accused. The pivotal issue for consideration at this stage is whether the defence raised by the accused is plausible, probable, and legally sustainable--such as would be sufficient to rebut the presumption regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
62. The defence may be founded either on direct evidence adduced by the accused or may emerge from material inconsistencies, omissions, or inherent improbabilities discernible within the complainant's version, particularly as elicited during cross- examination. However, to succeed, the defence must be cogent enough to inspire confidence and must raise a credible doubt regarding the true purpose behind the issuance of the impugned cheque. In this context, the Court now undertakes a holistic and careful analysis of the defence evidence on record, as well as the explanations tendered by the accused, to assess whether the statutory presumption stands effectively rebutted in the present case.
63. It is an admitted position on record that the cheque in question pertains to the bank account of the accused and bears his admitted signatures. This fact stands acknowledged by the accused himself during his statement recorded under Section 251 CrPC and u/s 313 CrPC. Once the execution of the cheque and its ownership are admitted, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act automatically comes into play. The law mandates that the court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Digitally signed Page no.22/33 by SHRUTI
SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13
16:46:32 +0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
Thus, by his own admission of execution, the accused is deemed to have drawn the cheque in favour of the complainant towards satisfaction of an existing liability, and the initial burden of proof shifts upon him to rebut the said presumption by leading cogent, credible, and convincing evidence. Mere denial or ipse dixit assertions are legally insufficient to discharge this onus.
64. Despite having admitted the issuance of the cheque in question and the affixation of his signature thereon, the accused has sought to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by projecting the defence which has been examined in the light of his statement recorded under Section 251 of the Code and statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC.
65. In his statement recorded u/s 251 CrPC, the accused admitted that he is the signatory of the impugned cheque and stated that he had given a blank signed cheque, the remaining particulars whereof were filled in his presence. He further stated that the complainant company had supplied defective items.The accused also admitted that the cheque pertains to his account, that the return memo is correct, and that he had received the legal demand notice, though he stated that he did not remember whether any reply was sent thereto.
66. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.11.2022, the accused admitted that he had placed orders for supply of 95 units of Astral 100 ventilators with accessories with the complainant and that agreements dated 30.12.2015 and the subsequent modified agreement dated 17.03.2016 were executed between the parties. He also admitted issuance of four cheques bearing Nos. 311152, 311153, 311154 and 311155, but asserted that all the said cheques were dated 31.03.2016 and were given only as security cheques in terms of Annexure-I to the agreement dated 17.03.2016. The accused stated that the complainant had not completed the supply order within time and had failed to fulfil the tender conditions. According to him, despite incomplete performance of the contract, the complainant misused Digitally signed SHRUTI by SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.23/33 SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 16:46:33 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh the cheque in question by presenting it for encashment. He further alleged that the date on the cheque was altered/misappropriated to 18.11.2016, contrary to what was mentioned in the agreement, and that the cheque was presented without any crystallised liability. He denied that he had failed to make payment towards the cheque amount, reiterating that no liability had arisen as the complainant had not completed the order. The accused termed the present case as false, asserted that he had been falsely implicated, and claimed that the complainant had acted with intent to harass him and out of professional or personal vendetta. He maintained his innocence and expressed his desire to lead defence evidence.
67. Having expressed his intention to lead defence evidence, the Accused examined DW 1 in support of his defense. DW-1, Sh. Deevi Ratnakar Babu, deposed that he was working as the General Manager of M/s Biomed Health Care from 2013 to 2018 and was looking after government business of the firm. He stated that he first met the sales team of the complainant company, ResMed India Pvt. Ltd., at a conference at Puri in 2014, where he proposed business development between the two entities.
68. He deposed that in 2015, a tender was floated by APMSIDC for emergency transport ventilators. On behalf of Biomed Health Care, he approached the complainant for authorisation and requisite documents to participate in the tender. According to him, the complainant authorised Biomed Health Care and asked them to quote the model Astral 100. Biomed Health Care participated in the tender and succeeded.
69. DW-1 stated that on 30.12.2015, representatives of the complainant, namely Mr. Vinay Ratan and Mr. Narva Chandrashekhar, visited the Vijayawada office of Biomed Health Care and obtained dealership application. He further stated that on 31.12.2015, an agreement dated 30.12.2015 (Ex. CW-1/7 colly.) was executed at Vijayawada between Biomed Health Care and the complainant in his presence, Digitally signed Page no.24/33 SHRUTI by SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 16:46:35 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh signed by the accused K. Ramesh, himself, and complainant's representatives, with the signature of the Managing Director pending. On the same day, the complainant raised an invoice for supply of stocks.
70. He further deposed that in January 2016, Biomed Health Care received a purchase order from APMSIDC for 95 units of Astral 100 ventilators, which was later reduced to 76 units within about ten days. He stated that upon instructions of the accused, he requested the complainant to reduce the quantity, but the complainant insisted on supplying the full tender quantity. Consequently, supply was kept on hold till March 2016.
71. DW-1 stated that on 16.03.2016, representatives of the complainant informed him that the earlier agreement was expiring and required amendment. On 17.03.2016, Mr. Kamal Kishore and Mr. Narva Chandrashekhar came to Vijayawada and an amended agreement was executed with the accused in his presence. On the same day, the accused furnished a bank guarantee as required. Thereafter, the complainant supplied the goods to Biomed Health Care, which in turn supplied them to APMSIDC.
72. He further deposed that in the following month, a query was raised by the end user that the equipment supplied was not as per tender norms upon perusal of the product manual. He also stated that in September 2016, correspondence was received from the complainant stating that the batteries were faulty and required replacement as per an international Field Safety Notification (FSN).
73. Upon recall, DW-1 deposed that after receiving the FSN from the complainant, he informed the accused about the fault in the equipment and asked him to contact the complainant. He proved on record a letter dated 23.01.2016 issued by APMSIDC to Biomed Health Care as Ex. DW-1/A (colly.), as well as email correspondence exchanged between him and the complainant during the period May 2016 to Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.25/33 SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:36 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh September 2016 as Ex. DW-1/B (colly.), along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. DW-1/C. Thus, DW-1 sought to support the defence version that the transaction was linked to the APMSIDC tender, that issues were raised regarding compliance of the Astral 100 ventilators with tender norms, and that defects including battery faults were acknowledged by the complainant.
74. In cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he had been associated with the accused's proprietorship, M/s Biomed Health Care, as General Manager from 2013 to 2018, and that he is presently working as a freelancer in the field of medical equipment and hospital development. He clarified that he is no longer associated with the accused and has no current dealings with him. DW-1 admitted that the cheque in question was issued in furtherance of the terms of the agreement dated 17.03.2016, as per Annexure-I thereof. He further stated that the ordered goods were delivered by the complainant to the accused by the end of March 2016, and that the entire goods were delivered in terms of the purchase order. Regarding his role, DW-1 stated that he was representing the proprietorship of the accused as General Manager and was authorised to negotiate and discuss the transaction with the complainant.
75. DW-1 denied the suggestion that the goods delivered were not defective. He asserted that there was both written and oral correspondence regarding the defective goods supplied by the complainant, and volunteered that the complainant had itself written to the accused admitting that there was a fault in the machine which needed correction. He denied that no such correspondence or conversation took place, and reiterated that there were defects in the machines supplied.He admitted that the clinical guide/manual to run the machines was provided by the complainant, but volunteered that he himself never used to run the machines.
Digitally
signed by
SHRUTI
SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13
Page no.26/33 16:46:38
+0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
76. DW-1 denied that the accused was liable to pay the cheque amount towards any outstanding liability. He also denied the suggestion that the issue of defective machines was raised merely to unlawfully withhold payment due to the complainant. He further denied that he was not directly involved in the transactions pertaining to the present case. DW-1 also denied the suggestion that the certificate under Section 65B in support of the email correspondence (Ex. DW-1/C) was not filed as per law, and lastly denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
77. There is no dispute inter se the parties with respect to the existence of commercial dealings between them, nor is there any contestation regarding the factum of issuance of four cheques by the accused, including cheque bearing No. 311155, drawn on his bank account. These foundational facts stand admitted and are borne out from the pleadings as well as the statements of the accused recorded under Sections 251 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The controversy before this Court, therefore, does not centre on the existence of a business relationship or the mechanical issuance of the cheque, but lies at a far more nuanced and determinative plane.
78. The real issue requiring adjudication pertains to the juridical character of the cheque in question, the purpose for which it was issued, and the stage at which it was sought to be enforced. Specifically, the dispute is whether cheque No. 311155 represented an instrument issued in discharge of a subsisting and legally enforceable debt, or whether it formed part of a set of cheques issued as contractual security, intended to operate contingently upon fulfilment of stipulated obligations under a tender-linked agreement. The timing of presentation of the cheque, viewed in the context of the underlying contractual framework and the conditional nature of payment envisaged therein, thus assumes decisive significance.
Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.27/33 SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13
16:46:40 +0530
Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
79. The accused has, with marked consistency, taken the stand that the four cheques in question, including cheque bearing No. 311155, were not issued towards immediate discharge of any existing debt, but were furnished as security instruments in the context of an ongoing contractual arrangement. This position has remained unvarying from the stage of notice under Section 251 CrPC, through the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, and has been reiterated in the defence evidence and written submissions. According to the accused, all four cheques were issued contemporaneously pursuant to Annexure-I appended to the agreement dated 17.03.2016, and each of them bore the date 31.03.2016, aggregating the total invoice value contemplated under the said agreement.
80. The defence further asserts that the cheques were intended to operate only within the framework of the contractual terms governing the transaction, which itself was integrally linked to compliance with the conditions of the APMSIDC tender. It is the accused's specific case that the cheques were furnished as a measure of assurance, to secure future payment contingent upon successful, tender-compliant execution of supply, acceptance by the end user, and consequent release of funds. In this backdrop, the unilateral presentation of cheque No. 311155 on 18.11.2016, long after the date reflected in the annexure and in the absence of fulfilment of the contractual milestones, is alleged to be in clear derogation of the understanding between the parties.
81. The gravamen of the defence, therefore, is not a denial of issuance of the cheque, but a challenge to its juridical enforceability at the time of its presentation. The accused contends that, in the absence of a crystallised liability--one that had ripened into an unconditional and legally enforceable debt--the cheque could not have been validly presented so as to attract the penal consequences under Section Digitally 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:43 +0530 Page no.28/33 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
82. In light of these rival positions, the determinative question which arises for consideration is whether, as on the date the cheque was presented for encashment, there existed a subsisting, definite, and legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused, or whether the liability remained contingent, disputed, and inchoate under the governing contract. It is this enquiry, rather than the mere issuance or dishonour of the cheque, that lies at the core of the present adjudication.
83. The material on record unmistakably demonstrates that the transaction between the parties was not in the nature of a simple or standalone sale of goods, but was inextricably intertwined with APMSIDC Tender No. 6.25BAPMSIDC2014-15, a government procurement process governed by stringent technical specifications, procedural safeguards, and phased payment mechanisms. The commercial relationship between the parties, therefore, operated within the contours of a public tender regime, where obligations and liabilities did not arise merely upon dispatch of goods, but were conditioned upon compliance with multiple post-supply requirements.
84. In support of this position, the defence has drawn the Court's attention to the APMSIDC purchase order and its subsequent modification dated 23.01.2016 (Ex. DW-1/A colly.), as well as to the express recitals contained in the agreement dated 17.03.2016. A plain reading of these documents leaves little scope for ambiguity:
the supply contemplated thereunder was expressly stipulated to be "as per tender conditions", thereby incorporating the tender terms into the contractual framework governing the parties.
85. These documents further reveal that payment under the tender was not immediate or automatic upon supply, but was contingent upon sequential fulfilment of defined milestones, namely, physical supply and stock entry, installation and commissioning at designated sites, and satisfactory performance of the equipment for a stipulated post-installation period. Crucially, each of these stages was Digitally signed Page no.29/33 SHRUTI by SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 16:46:45 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh required to be verified and certified by APMSIDC, the procuring authority, before release of funds.
86. Viewed in this contractual and regulatory context, the evidentiary lacuna on the part of the complainant assumes decisive importance. Despite extensive correspondence exchanged between the parties on issues of installation, performance, and technical compliance, correspondence which is itself on record, the complainant has not produced any performance certificate, or document evidencing release of payment by APMSIDC. In a transaction where the accused's obligation to make payment was contractually tethered to governmental certification and disbursement, the absence of such foundational documents cannot be treated as a mere procedural omission. Rather, it directly impinges upon the question whether the liability claimed by the complainant had at all crystallised into an enforceable debt at the relevant time.
87. The Court is, therefore, unable to proceed on the assumption that mere dispatch of goods, in isolation from tender-mandated acceptance and certification, was sufficient to fasten unconditional monetary liability upon the accused.
88. Annexure-I appended to the agreement dated 17.03.2016 specifically records the details of four cheques, bearing Nos. 311152, 311153, 311154 and 311155, each reflecting the date 31.03.2016, and collectively aggregating the entire invoice value contemplated under the agreement. This annexure is not a unilateral document set up by the defence, but forms part of the complainant's own contractual record placed on file, and its authenticity or existence has not been disputed during the course of trial. The annexure, therefore, constitutes a contemporaneous documentary reflection of the understanding between the parties at the time the cheques were furnished.
Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:47 +0530 Page no.30/33 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh
89. It is in this factual backdrop that the accused has specifically asserted that cheque No. 311155 was one among the said four cheques issued as a security instrument, and that its date was subsequently filled or altered to 18.11.2016 without his authority or consent. The significance of this allegation lies not merely in the claim of misuse, but in the manner in which the complainant has chosen to meet, or rather, not meet, this challenge.
90. Notably, the complainant has offered no explanation whatsoever for the apparent discrepancy between the date recorded against cheque No. 311155 in Annexure-I and the date borne on the cheque as presented for encashment. The complainant has further failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the date "18.11.2016" was filled in by the accused himself or with his consent, nor has any effort been made to seek a handwriting or forensic examination of the cheque, despite the issue having been squarely raised by the defence.
91. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the cheque itself constitutes the very foundation of criminal culpability, the manner in which the instrument came to be completed and presented cannot be treated as a peripheral or inconsequential matter. An unexplained and unaddressed discrepancy touching upon a material particular of the cheque, particularly its date, assumes substantive importance and necessarily weakens the complainant's assertion that the cheque was presented in accordance with the contractual understanding and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
92. The defence has further placed reliance upon contemporaneous documentary material, particularly the email correspondence exhibited as Ex. DW-1/B (colly.) and the Field Safety Notification bearing reference FSN1608002, which was admittedly issued by the complainant itself. These documents draw attention to battery-related issues in the ventilators supplied, including the risk of interruption or cessation of ventilation under certain conditions. The provenance of the Field Digitally signed by SHRUTI Page no.31/33 SHRUTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.13 16:46:48 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh Safety Notification, emanating from the complainant, lends objective weight to the defence assertion that concerns regarding the equipment were not speculative or ex post facto, but were acknowledged contemporaneously.
93. DW-1, whose testimony has not been materially dislodged in cross-examination, deposed in a consistent and coherent manner regarding the sequence of events following supply of the equipment. He spoke of technical objections raised by the end user, queries addressed to the complainant concerning the suitability of the ventilators for use in emergency transport and ambulance settings, and the forwarding of the Field Safety Notification both to the accused and to the tendering authority. His testimony finds corroboration in the contemporaneous email exchanges placed on record, which reflect ongoing dialogue on technical compliance and remedial measures.
94. When viewed against this documentary backdrop, the categorical assertion made by CW-1 that there were "no defects" in the goods supplied appears unduly simplistic and does not sit comfortably with the record as a whole. This Court is conscious that it is not called upon, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undertake a detailed adjudication on the civil question of quality of goods or contractual breach. Nevertheless, the existence of documented technical concerns and unresolved issues cannot be ignored, for they bear directly upon the question whether the accused's liability had, in fact, matured into an absolute, unconditional, and legally enforceable debt at the relevant time.
95. The combined effect of the material circumstances brought on record--namely, the tender-linked and conditional nature of the transaction, the absence of any proof demonstrating acceptance of the goods or release of payment by APMSIDC, the contractual characterisation of the cheques as security instruments rather than as immediate modes of payment, and the contemporaneous documentary material Digitally signed SHRUTI by SHRUTI SHARMA Page no.32/33 SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 16:46:50 +0530 Ct Case no. 1047/2017 M/s Resmed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramesh reflecting unresolved issues of performance and compliance--suffices, in the considered view of this Court, to raise a probable and plausible defence in favour of the accused.
96. In such a situation, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, though initially operating in favour of the complainant, stands effectively rebutted. Once this presumption is displaced, the evidentiary burden shifts back upon the complainant to affirmatively establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a subsisting, legally enforceable debt or liability as on the date of its presentation. On a careful appraisal of the entire record, this Court finds that the complainant has been unable to meet this burden.
Conclusion
97. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, Accused K. Ramesh, is hereby held not guilty and stand acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
98. The judgment duly digitally signed be uploaded on CIS.
Announced in the open
Digitally signed by
on 13.01.2026 SHRUTI SHRUTI SHARMA
SHARMA
(Shruti
Date: 2026.01.13
Sharma-I) 16:46:52 +0530
JMFC (NI Act)-02, South-East,
Saket Courts, New Delhi 13.01.2026.
Certified that this judgment contains 33 pages and each page bears my signature.
Page no.33/33