Delhi District Court
Also In The Case Of K. Bhaskaran vs . Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan 1999 (4) on 30 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MR. MRIDUL GUPTA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, DELHI
In Re:
CNR No. DLSW02-002282-2016
CC No. 4992059/16
Ram Niwas Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Ram Mehar,
R/o House No. 8, Rao Mohalla,
Near Holi Chowk,
Village and Post Office Surehera,
Najafgarh,New Delhi-110043
............Complainant
Versus
B.K. Jha,
S/o Sh. Hari Kant Jha.
H.NO. 56, Third Floor,
Plot No. 45, Neelgiri, Apartment,
Sector-09 Rohini, New Delhi
Also At:-
Post of General Manager-CDMA (GM)
Accounts Department,
Office At. MTNL, IDGHA Road,
Sadar, Paharganj, Sadar Bazar,
New Delhi .............Accused
(1) Offence complained of or
proved : 138 N.I. Act
(2) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(3) Date of institution of case : 29.01.2016
(4) Date of conclusion of arguments: 09.08.2019
Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 1 of 14
(5) Date of Final Order : 30.08.2019
(6) Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ').
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are as under:-
The complainant alleges that he had family relations with accused. It is alleged that accused had earlier also taken loan from complainant which was repaid in time and thereafter, accused once again approached complainant for friendly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 19.12.2012 for purchasing of property. Thus, complainant advanced the friendly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- to accused in cash for a period of two years. Thereafter, accused requested for some more time to make repayment, after expiry of two years. In October 2015, complainant again visited house of accused and accused issued one cheque of Rs. 9,00,000/- i.e. cheque in question bearing no. 992137 dated 05.10.2015 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd, Pitampura, New Delhi to complainant towards part discharge of loan, with an assurance of its encashment. After due date of cheque in question, the complainant presented the cheque in his account maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Palam Extension, Delhi, which were returned with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" vide bank return memo dated 17.12.2015. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 30.12.2015 upon the accused through his counsel demanding the said amount. The accused sent reply to the legal notice denying that he had taken any loan of Rs. 20,000/- from complainant. He stated that rather in year 2012, he had taken an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from complainant and given blank signed cheques as security. The amount was later repaid, however, complainant did not return the cheques on the pretext of same Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 2 of 14 being lost. Now the said cheques were being misused by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant has filed the present complaint case with the submission that accused be summoned, tried and punished according to law.
3. In his pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself on affidavit Ex. CW-1/1B. He reiterated the contents of complaint and placed on record, original cheque of Rs. 9,00,000/- i.e. cheque in question bearing no. 992137 dated 05.10.2015 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd, Pitampura, New Delhi as Ex. CW-1/1, cheque returning memo dated 17.12.2015 as Ex. CW-1/2, legal demand notice dated 30.12.2015 as Ex. CW-1/3, courier receipts as Ex. CW-1/4 and Ex. CW-1/5 and receipts of speed post as Ex. CW-1/6and Ex.CW1/7, tracking report of courier alongwith certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.CW1/8 and Ex. CW-1/9, tracking report of speed post along with certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. CW-1/10 and Ex. CW-1/11, reply dated 19.01.2016 to the legal demand notice as Ex. CW-1/12.
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for this offence was framed upon accused on 02.07.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He admitted his signature on the cheque in question, however, stated that remaining particulars in the cheque were not filled by him. He stated that he had given the cheque in question to complainant as security for loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He has already repaid the said loan by means of NEFT and by direct transfer into account of complainant. He admitted receipt of legal notice.
5. The accused moved an application to cross-examine the complainant. Complainant as CW-1 was duly cross examined by the accused. No other witness was produced by the complainant and he closed his evidence by giving a separate statement to this effect. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence were put to him to which accused reiterated his defence as stated in answer to notice under Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 3 of 14 Section 251 Cr. P.C. He stated that he had taken loan of Rs.4,70,000 from the complainant in about year 2012-2013. He had repaid an amount of more than Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant in discharge of said loan in year 2014. At the time of taking loan, he gave three blank signed cheques including cheque in question for security purpose to the complainant. He also gave some blank signed papers to the complainant. The blank signed cheques had been misused by the complainant. He admitted receipt of legal notice and stated that he also gave reply to the same.
6. Accused preferred to lead evidence in his defence and had examined himself as DW-1. The witness was cross-examined by counsel for complainant. The accused did not examine any other witness and vide his statement, defence evidence was closed.
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that this is a fit case for conviction of the accused as all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Act read with Section 139 of the Act have been fulfilled and that the same has been aptly demonstrated by the complainant before the court. It was argued that accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in his plea of defence recorded at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C as well as in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. He argued that the accused in his cross-examination as DW-1 admitted signatures on the promissory note regarding the loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- i.e Ex. CW-1/14 (OSR). The version of accused that same was blank paper when same was gotten signed by him is not believable as accused is a Government employee. He also argued that as per version of accused, the cheque in question was given as security and not returned upon repayment of the loan. However, accused did not place on record any complaint filed against the complainant for misuse of cheque. He also argued that accused has also taken loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the son of complainant as shown from document Ex. DW-1/C-1. It was argued that complainant also disclosed sufficient sources to advance the present loan, during his cross-examination. It was argued that accused failed to raise the probable Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 4 of 14 defence to disprove the case of complainant and to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. Therefore, accused be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
8. Per contra, on behalf of accused, ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made by accused in his plea of defence at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in defence evidence. It was argued that the complainant in his examination in chief by way of affidavit as well as in his cross-examination dated 28.03.2017 stated that before the present loan was advanced to accused on 19.12.2012, the earlier loan taken by accused was repaid to complainant. However, the accused in his examination in chief as DW-1, placed on record the documents regarding payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to complainant through NEFT on 06.06.2013. The accused also placed on record, cash deposit slips of Rs. 2.35 lakhs into account of complainant from 19.09.2012 to 05.04.2014. He argued that same was not denied or disputed by the complainant throughout trial. He also argued that in the complaint, it was averred that accused issued one cheque to the complainant whereas in the legal demand notice it was stated that three cheques were issued to complainant by accused. Furthermore in cross-examination of complainant dated. 28.03.2017, it was stated that two cheques were issued by accused to complainant and later on the complainant stated that three cheques were issued out of which one was not presented. It was argued that promissory note Ex. CW-1/14 was not initially filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint which cast doubt on case of complainant. He argued that evidence of complainant suffered from material lapses and was not sufficient to establish the case against accused. He submitted that complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitled to be acquitted of offence u/s 138 of the Act.
9. I have perused the entire record as well as evidence led by the complainant as well as by the accused.
10. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 5 of 14 decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first:-
For the offence under Section 138 of the Act to be made out against the accused, the complainant must prove the following points, that:-
1. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
2. the said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
3. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
4. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured.
5. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
6. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
11. The Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) and secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability.
Section 118 of the N.I Act provides :
"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 of the N.I Act further provides as follows:
"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".
Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 6 of 14
12. For the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 have to be compulsory raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted to accused to prove otherwise. These presumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists. Presumptions both under Sections 118 and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee [(2001) 6 SCC 16].
13. In the present case, accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question in the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C and in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. He did not deny his signature on the cheque either in cross-examination of complainant and also in defence evidence. Reference can be made to Judgment of Apex Court in Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898,that, "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant."
Also in the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 309, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability."
It has been held in M/s. Kumar Exports v. M/s. Sharma Carpets, [2009 A.I.R. (SC) 1518] that the accused may rebut these presumptions by leading direct evidence and in some and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial.
Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 7 of 14 Further, the burden may be discharged by the accused by showing preponderance of probabilities and the onus on the accused is not as heavy as it is on the complainant to prove his case. In light of aforestated legal position, let us carry out a scrutiny of the evidence led at the trial.
14. It is the defence of the accused as brought out from his testimony as DW-1 that he had not taken any loan of Rs. 20 lacs from complainant. Rather, he had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from complainant on 19.05.2012 and further loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- on 18.07.2012. He had also placed on record his account statement regarding the same as Ex. DW-1/A(OSR). He further stated that he had repaid the entire loan to complainant. He made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to complainant through NEFT, as shown from his passbook Ex. DW-1/B (OSR) bearing relevant entry as dated 06.06.2013. He also made payment of Rs. 2,35,000/- into accounts of complainant from 19.09.2012 to 05.04.2014 through cash deposit slips, which were Ex DW-1/C (OSR)(colly)(3 pages). He also paid Rs. 22,500/- to complainant by way of cheque on 23.05.2012 as shown in his passbook Ex. DW-1/A (OSR). He also stated that he had repaid Rs. 20,000/- to complainant in cash and Rs.42,500/- to wife of complainant in cash, though admittedly he did not have any receipt of the same.
15. It is his defence that the cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque at the time of taking loan from the complainant. However, even after repayment of the loan as above, the complainant did not return the cheque and misused the same. In his cross-examination, accused admitted that he did not give any written intimation to complainant or file any police complaint against complainant for not returning his cheques and other documents. Though the accused did not take any such action, however vide cross-examination of complainant and producing the records of repayment made to complainant, accused pointed out material infirmities in case of complainant, to rebut the statutory presumption by showing the non- existence of debt.
16. The complainant i.e. CW-1, in his examination-in-chief and in the complaint Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 8 of 14 stated that loan of Rs. 20 lacs was advanced to the accused on 19.12.2012 and accused issued the cheque in question in month of October, 2015 after repeated demands for repayment. Furthermore, in his examination-in-chief as well as complaint, it was stated that earlier loan taken by accused from complainant was repaid to complainant in time and only thereafter, was the present loan demanded and advanced. Even in his cross-examination dated 28.03.2017, the complainant stated that:
"It is correct that even before the present transaction that is for which the cheque in question was issued, I gave a loan to the accused. The said money was returned. It is correct that before the cheque in question the accused had no other pending liability."
Thus, as is clear from his statement in cross-examination, before the issuance of cheque in question of Rs. 9 lacs in October, 2015, accused had no other pending liability as against the loans taken by him.
17. However, complainant did not disclose any details as to the amount or the date on which the said earlier loan was advanced to accused or was repaid. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that any amount regarding the present alleged loan of Rs. 20 lacs has been repaid by the accused. There is no mention of any repayment made by accused to the complainant regarding the present loan, either in complaint or his evidence affidavit or in the legal demand notice. However, the complainant in his cross-examination dated 07.02.2018 admitted that accused deposited an amount of Rs. 65,000/- in his HDFC Account in the years 2013 and 2014. He further admitted that the accused deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- through NEFT in his Axis Bank Account on 06.06.2013. He stated that he did not remember whether accused deposited Rs. 2,35,000/- in his Karur Vyasa Bank account in 2012-2013 and also whether he received Rs. 22,500/- from accused on 23.05.2012 through cheque. However, the cash deposit slips regarding deposit of Rs. 2,35,000/- into account of complainant as Ex. DW- 1/C(Colly) and the bank passbook of accused showing deposit of Rs. 22,500/- into account of complainant as Ex. DW-1/A (OSR) were placed on record by accused Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 9 of 14 in his defence evidence as already discussed above. The same were not disputed or denied by the complainant during cross-examination of accused. Rather, at that stage, the complainant stated that he is not denying that the account numbers into which the cash was deposited were his accounts.
18. A purposive reading of all the evidence placed on record regarding the repayments made by accused to complainant, at different times, reveals the picture as under. Even after the alleged advancement of present loan of Rs. 20 lacs to accused on 19.12.2012, accused has shown various repayments made to complainant. Firstly, payment made to complainant vide cash deposit slips (Ex. DW-1/C) dated 07.01.2013 (Rs. 30,000/-), 17.01.2013 (Rs. 20,000/-), 08.03.2013 (Rs. 18,000/-), 08.03.2013 (Rs. 7,000/-), 13.07.2013 (Rs. 15,000/-), 01.10.2013 (Rs. 20,000/-), 05.12.2013 (Rs. 5,000/-), 26.12.2013 (Rs. 10,000/-), 05.04.2014 (Rs. 10,000/-) and 05.05.2014 (Rs. 20,000/-). Thus accused deposited total amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- into account of complainant in the period from 07.01.2013 to 05.05.2014 itself. Secondly, accused deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- into account of complainant vide NEFT dated 06.06.2013 (Ex. DW1-/B). Thus, there is proof of repayment of at least Rs. 3,55,000/- to complainant even after the present loan was advanced on 19.12.2012. Thirdly, even before December 2012, on 23.05.2012, Rs. 22,500/- was paid into account of complainant (passbook Ex. DW-1/A), cash deposited on 19.09.2012 (Rs. 20,000/-) and on 14.12.2012 (Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-) into account of complainant. The complainant has not offered any explanation as to for what purpose the said repayment was being made continuously and consistently in similar amounts by the accused when the earlier loan had already been repaid in time and only thereafter the present alleged loan was advanced. This reveals that the complainant has not disclosed the accurate and entire gamut of transactions between the parties. The same casts doubt on case of complainant.
19. Ld. Counsel for complainant at the stage of final arguments stated that the repayments made by the accused to complainant were not disputed. He argued that the said repayments were in lieu of earlier loan taken by accused. However, Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 10 of 14 this argument of Ld. Counsel for complainant is not tenable as the same is contrary to stand of the complainant that the earlier loans were already repaid prior to present loan. Thus this argument appears to be an afterthought and not credible. Moreover during his cross-examination, the factum of the deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- into his account by accused was put to complainant, to which he voluntarily stated that the cheque in question did not pertain to the said deposit. However complainant did not furnish any explanation as to then for what purpose the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited into his account by accused.
20. Ld. Counsel for complainant at the stage of final arguments also relied upon bank statement of complainant Ex. CW-1/DA-1(Colly). He submitted that as per the statement, complainant withdrew an amount of Rs. 33,80,000/- from his account on 16.11.2012. He argued that thus complainant advanced loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash to accused on 19.12.2012, out of said funds. However, this averment also does not substantiate the case of complainant. Upon the detailed perusal of the same bank statement, it is revealed that earlier loans of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 19.05.2012 and further loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- on 18.07.2012, were also advanced to accused from same account directly through cheques. Also the repayments as detailed above were also made by accused to complainant into account of latter, through NEFT, cash deposit or through cheque, periodically and consistently. Thus there is no explanation from the complainant as to what was the occasion to now advance a huge amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash to the accused, without taking any security for the same, as the cheque in question is alleged to be given in October 2015 i.e. almost after three years of granting of loan. This transaction in cash was in total contradistinction to all their previous dealings which were always through bank channel.
21. The complainant has also relied upon a handwritten "promissory note" of loan (Ex. CW-1/14), which is stated to be issued by accused. The accused has admitted the signatures on promissory note Ex. CW-1/14. The only averment of accused regarding the same is that it was a blank document at the time when it was gotten signed from him, and later on misused and converted into the note by Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 11 of 14 complainant. Such a mere averment is not sufficient to escape the terms of the document. However it is always open to a party to show that the document was devoid of any consideration. As discussed above, through extensive cross- examination of complainant and by producing the record of repayments made into account of complainant even after alleged loan, accused has been able to cast doubt on the alleged loan of Rs. 20,00,000/-. This casts doubt on the existence of the consideration as stated out in the "promissory note" Ex. CW-1/14. Moreover the said receipt is not a formally drawn up document. The same is handwritten. Furthermore complainant did not mention anything as to execution of any promissory note either in the legal demand notice, complaint or in his examination-in-chief. The complainant was cross-examined partly on 19.09.2016. Only when complainant was recalled for cross-examination on 28.03.2017, he produced the note, voluntarily, without being called for from the opposite party or the court. The above facts and circumstances coupled with the tenor of the document along with doubt cast on the loan during trial, renders the document unreliable. In Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013) 3 SCC 86, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"the absence of any details of the date on which the loan was advanced as also the absence of any documentary or other evidence to show that any such loan transaction had indeed taken place between the parties is a significant circumstance."
22. Moreover the complainant has allegedly advanced loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- to accused in cash, which is in contravention of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein it is specifically laid down that if a loan is advanced which is more than Rs. 20,000/-, it has to be by way of writing reflected in the books of account. However in present case there is no reliable document of alleged loan and complainant also stated in his cross-examination that he does not file ITR. The Hon'ble High Court in Kulvinder Singh v. Kafil Ahmed (supra), also held that when alleged loan is in contravention of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, it clearly creates doubt regarding truthfulness of stand taken by complainant about advancement of loan.
Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 12 of 14
23. Here reliance can also be placed upon decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bijender Sharma v. Anil Sabharwal, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10375 wherein it was held:
"25. True it is that in all cases where the loan transaction is not referred to or reflected in the Income Tax Returns, one cannot jump to a conclusion that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act stand rebutted. In cases where the amount is small, the same principal may not apply. However, a huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs has to be explained or else even when such transaction is in the realm of suspicion, an imprimatur of the Court would be given if such transaction is accepted as a valid transaction. There is no gainsaying that non reflection of the loan transaction in the ITR certainly makes the loan unaccounted for, for which penalty could be imposed on the person concerned but it does not become per se unrecoverable. In the present case, seen along with the other facts, this lapse on the part of the petitioner assumes significance. It is thus difficult to presume that there existed a debt liability."
24. In light of above facts and circumstances, it is revealed that the case of the complainant is inherently very weak. It has been defence of accused right from reply to the legal demand notice that he had taken not taken any loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from complainant, rather he had taken only a loan of Rs. 4,70,000/- from complainant in 2012 and cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque for said transaction itself. The said loan was repaid as shown by accused during trial through records of repayment made into account of complainant. Complainant failed to furnish any explanation as to why the payments were being received continuously into his accounts for the previous loan, even after advancement of present alleged loan in cash. Advancement of present loan in cash without any security, whereas all previous dealings were through bank, also raises doubt on case of complainant. The handwritten promissory note of loan, is also not reliable as accused has been able to raise reasonable doubt as to existence of consideration in the same. Advancing hefty amount of loan in cash, in contravention of tax laws, also casts doubt on version of complainant. Apart from the cheque in question, there is no reliable evidence produced by the complainant to substantiate the advancement of loan to accused.
Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 13 of 14
25. In order to rebut the presumption of Section 139 of the Act accused is not required to bring direct evidence but should adduce sufficient cogent evidence or can rely upon the circumstances which shows the probability of non- existence of debt or liability. Accused has to prove his defence on the scale of preponderance of possibilities as held in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (supra). In present matter, from the case of the complainant itself coupled with the consistent line of defence taken by him, accused has been able to raise a reasonable probable defence and has been able to rebut the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Act and the reverse onus cast upon him has been discharged.
26. Since the accused has rebutted the statutory presumptions, the onus again shifts back upon the complainant. Now the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come for the rescue of the complainant and case of complainant has to stands on his own legs. In the instant case, complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof and could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Accordingly, the accused B.K. Jha, S/o Sh. Hari Kant Jha is acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the Act.
Digitally signed by MRIDUL MRIDUL GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2019.08.30
15:17:55 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (MRIDUL GUPTA)
TODAY i.e. 30th AUGUST 2019 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS/ DELHI
Shri Ram Niwas Yadav v B.K.Jha CC No. 4992059/16 Page no. 14 of 14