Delhi District Court
Cc No. 3643-2021 Upl Limited vs . M/S Shaktiman Krishak Sewa Kendra Page ... on 8 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH
M.M.- 01, (N. I. ACT), DIGITAL COURT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI.
JUDGMENT
CC No.3643-2021 UPL Limited Through its Authorised Representative Corporate office at UPL House, 610 B/2, Bandra Village, Off Western Express, Highway, Bandra (East), Mumbai-4000051 ........................................................ Complainant Versus M/s Shaktiman Krishak Sewa Kendra Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Mukesh Gupta, R/o Mandi Fatehganj Bulandshaher 203001, Uttar Pradesh ........................................................Accused
a) Unique/new case number : DLND02-010695-2021
b) Name of complainant : UPL Limited.
c) Name of accused person(s) : M/s Shaktiman Krishak Sewa Kendra
d) Offence complained of : Under Section 138 of N. I. Act,1881
e) Plea of accused person(s) : Pleaded not guilty Digitally signed by
f) Final order : Acquittal Harjot Harjot Singh Date:
Singh 2023.06.08
17:20:33
+0530
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.1 of 17
g) Date of such order : 08.06.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
(As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) Case of the complainant
1. The present Judgment is a result of culmination of trial initiated on the complaint filed by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant company is a well- known company dealing in Agrochemicals. The complainant company has operations in 123 countries with 23 manufacturing sites around the world. In India, the complainant is inter alia, engaged in the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of various agrochemicals including insecticides and pesticides. That the present complaint is being filed by the complainant though its AR Ms. Shaill Mishra which was later substituted by Sh. Jitendra Kumar Sharma. It is further stated that accused is the sole proprietor of and is carrying on business in the name and style of "M/s Shaktiman Krishak Sewa Kendra-Bulandshaher. It is further stated that accused approached the complainant seeking to run a non exclusive dealership of various products manufactured and distributed by the complainant. In this regard, the accused represented himself to have the wherewithal and the means to purchase and pay for these products. Accordingly, complainant executed a Dealership Agreement with the accused. That the accused raised demands of agrochemicals products from time to time from the complainant and accordingly, against such demands, the complainant duly supplied the accused with agrochemicals products which were duly accepted by the accused without demur. In this regard, complainant maintained a running account with respect to the goods supplied by the complainant to the accused under the agreement. That on account of the goods supplied to the accused by the complainant, a huge sum became due and payable by the accused to the complainant.
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.2 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:20:39 +0530
It is further stated that in discharge of his liability accused provided the complainant company a cheque bearing no. 000409 dated 25.03.2021, for an amount of Rs. 27,53,781/-, Drawn on HDFC Bank, which is Ex. CW1/2.
2. Complainant presented the cheque in question to his banker for encashment but the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Payment stopped by drawer"
vide separate return memo dated 14.05.2021, Ex. CW1/3.
3. The complainant demanded the above said amount from the accused but he did not make the payment. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.06.2021 Ex. CW1/4 through speed post Ex. CW1/5. The accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the present complaint case was filed.
4. Pre summoning evidence was recorded and proceedings were initiated against accused Mukesh Gupta. On summoning, accused entered his appearance and it was ensured that copy of complaint has been supplied. Thereafter notice under section 251 CrPC was put to the accused on 20.10.2022.
The Defence
5. Plea of defence was recorded on 20.10.2022. Wherein accused stated that "The cheque in question is given by me to the complainant as blank cheque in December 2019. The cheque was handed over to the complainant in good faith. I have requested them to take bank surety from me but they insisted on giving the cheque to them. The details mentioned in the cheque that is the amount and the date are not filled by me. Even the ledger account of the complainant does not reflect the amount mentioned in the cheque towards me. I do not owe any liability towards the complainant. The cheque has been misused by the complainant. I do not want to say anything further".
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.3 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: 2023.06.08 Singh 17:20:44 +0530
Thereafter, matter was fixed for complainant evidence and accused side was granted opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's evidence. COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
6. During the trial, complainant has led the oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The following evidence are as under:
Oral Evidence CW1 Sh. Jitendra Kumar Sharma Documentary Evidence Ex. CW1/1 Copy of authority letter.
Ex. CW1/2 Original Cheque dated 25.03.2021 Ex. CW 1/3 Original return memo dated 14.05.2021 Ex.CW 1/4. Legal demand notice dated 02.06.2021. Ex. CW 1/5 Original postal receipts.
Ex.CW 1/6. Proof of delivery of legal demand notice. Ex. CW1/7 Copy of reply dated 15.06.2021.
Ex. CW1/8 Original complainant.
Complainant stepped in witness box as CW1 and adopted his affidavit of pre-
summoning as his evidence reiterating almost all facts of complaint, stating all exhibits available on record.
7. Complainant evidence was closed vide order dated 14.12.2022 and thereafter, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
8. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.4 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:20:48 +0530 1973 on 28.03.2023. Incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused denied all the allegations. In recording of statement of accused, accused opted to lead defence evidence and has examined himself as defence witness and has relied on the documents Ex. DW 1/1 to DW 1/12.
9. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 13.04.2023.
10. Final arguments were addressed by the complainant and accused. Case file perused.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION-
11. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity; Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank; Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.5 of 17
Ha Digitally signed by Harjot Singh
Date: 2023.06.08 17:20:53 +0530
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE- .
12. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
Notably, there is no dispute qua the proof of first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex. CW1/2, which the accused had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused and is duly signed by the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo Ex. CW1/3 with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer". The accused has admitted the receipt of the legal demand notice dated 02.06.2021 Ex. CW 1/4 in his notice framed under 251 Cr.P.C on 20.10.2022 and in his statement recorded under Section 313 r/w Section 281 of Cr.P.C on 13.04.2023.
13. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the accused has disputed his liability qua the amount mentioned in the cheque in question as he contended that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant company in the year 2019 as 'security cheque' and the said cheque could not be said to be issued in discharge of a legal debt or other liability. Further he contended that, on the date of presentation of cheque for encashment, his liability was not of the cheque amount. It is well settled law that CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.6 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: 2023.06.08 Singh 17:20:58 +0530 mere denial by the accused would not rebut the statutory presumptions u/s 138 and u/s 118 of NI Act which arises in favour of the complainant under NI act and presumption will still arise in favour of complainant.
14. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.7 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:03 +0530 presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarize the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.8 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:08 +0530 either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the defence raised by the Ld. counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption is discussed below:
15. Defence that the cheque in question was not issued for any existing legal liability.
In the present case, the accused has raised a threefold defence which is discussed as follows:
15.1 Firstly, the accused contended that the cheque in question was handed over to the official of the complainant company in the year 2019 as "security cheque" and the complainant has wrongly stated that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant company in the year 2020 in order to discharge the legal liability of the accused.
The AR of the complainant in his cross examination recorded on 14.12.2022 has stated that the cheque was handed over to him personally by the accused in the year December 2020. Other than the cross examination, the factum of handing over the cheque is nowhere mentioned by the complainant in the complainant, evidence affidavit and legal demand notice etc. The accused has produced various documents to show that the cheque in question was given as security cheque to the complainant in the year December 2019. The accused has produced Ex. CW 1/D1 and Ex. CW 1/D2 in the cross examination of the AR of the complainant and has produced Ex. DW 1/1 to DW 1/5 in his defence evidence while examining himself as defence witness under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.9 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:13 +0530 The complainant has not disputed the genuineness and authenticity of any of the document produced by the accused to prove that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant company in December 2019 as "security cheque". Therefore it can be presumed that the cheque in question was given as security cheque in the year 2019.
The Apex Court in SRIPATI SINGH VS STATE OF JHARKHAND (2021) SCC ONLINE SC 1002 has held that " If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such payment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation if the same is dishonored, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and other provisions of NI Act would flow". Therefore, it can be said that the cheque issued as security cheque pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper. Even if it is presumed that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant in 2019 as "security cheque" then also the cheque would mature for presentation and the drawee can present the same. Therefore, the defence of the accused that the security cheque given in a financial transaction cannot be encashed to discharge a debt or liability is not tenable and is rejected.
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.10 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:18 +0530
15.2 Secondly, the accused contended that the cheque in question was given as blank signed cheque and the particulars on the cheque i.e. date, amount has not been filed by him and for the same reason, the cheque will be a invalid and void cheque. At this stage regard is placed on Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which reads as under:
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 :-
"20. Inchoate stamped instruments.--Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in 1[India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder."
Therefore, it can be said that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars on the cheque. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt or other liability.
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.11 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:22 +0530
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tiwari in Criminal Appeal no. 1260/2022 dated 16.08.2022 and in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 has clearly held that it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. Therefore the defence taken by the accused is not tenable and is hereby rejected.
15.3 Thirdly, the accused contended that the cheque was presented was more amount than what was actually due towards the complainant on the date of presentation of cheque. He further contended that the complainant had intentionally presented the cheque for more amount in order to take undue advantage over the accused. In order to prove or to substantiate the legal liability of the accused on the date of presentation of the cheque in question, the complainant has not placed on record any document. Other than the cheque in question, the complainant has not brought any document on record such as account statement, ledger statement or balance confirmation as on date of presentation of cheque to fasten the liability of the accused.
On the contrary, the accused has produced the ledger statement sent by the complainant company to the accused in the cross examination of the AR. The same is Ex. CW 1/D3 (Colly). The AR of the complainant in his cross examination has admitted the genuineness and veracity of the ledger statement Ex. CW 1/D3 (Colly).
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.12 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: 2023.06.08 Singh 17:21:27 +0530
As per ledger statement Ex. CW 1/D3 (Colly), the amount due towards the complainant company as on the date of the cheque in question is Rs. 27,33,781 i.e. on 25.03.2021. The liability of the accused between the date of the cheque in question and its presentation and return is Rs. 26,68,781.69/- and Rs. 26,53,781/- respectively as on 27.04.2021 and 17.05.2021. The date on which the legal demand notice was sent i.e. on 02.06.2021, the liability of the accused as per the ledger statement was Rs. 26,33,781.99/-. Even on the date when the cause of action to file the present complaint accrues in favour of complainant, the liability of the accused was Rs. 26,20,000/- approximately.
It is pertinent to note here that the cheque amount and the amount claimed by the complainant by way of legal demand notice is Rs. 27,53,781/- which is higher than the amount due towards the complainant as on date of cheque, date of presentation of cheque, date of dishonour of cheque and date on which the cause of action accrues in favour of the complainant.
No reasonable justification has been given by the complainant to demand the cheque amount from the accused. The AR of the complainant in his cross examination has stated that the cheque amount is the only due amount but no evidence or explanation has been tendered by him to substantiate the assertions regarding the liability of the accused qua the cheque amount.
Further the accused contended that the factum of some defects in the ledger statement has been raised with the complainant company and he has furnished the proof of CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.13 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:32 +0530 communications done with the complainant company regarding the defects vide Ex. DW 1/6 to DW 1/8. The complainant while cross examining the accused has not rebutted the same. The AR of the complainant in his cross examination has admitted that the accused had raised some defects in the ledger statement and he went to the accused to discuss the same. Therefore, it is not wrong to hold that there were defects in the ledger statement Ex. CW 1/D3 (Colly) sent by the complainant company to the accused.
Considering the above said contentions and the material on record, the court is of the opinion that the accused was regularly making part payments to the complainant company for the goods received by him. Even from the date of the cheque i.e. 25.03.2021 to the date of the dishonour of the cheque, the accused has made part payments to the complainant company. This fact is clearly established from the ledger statement placed on record which is Ex. CW 1/D3 (Colly). Therefore, it can be safely established that on the date of presentation of the cheque, the liability of the accused was not of the cheque amount but of the lesser amount as shown in the ledger statement. Further the court is of the opinion that the cheque was presented for more amount than the amount what was actually payable by the accused on the date of presentation of the cheque for encashment. This fact is further corroborated by the fact that the accused has raised defects in the ledger statement and still the cheque was presented by the complainant for full amount without adjusting the part payments and the other adjustments agreed between the parties. Therefore, the defence raised by the accused that the cheque was intentionally presented for more CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.14 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:37 +0530 amount is tenable and is hereby accepted. Therefore as per the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VS HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATER & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2022", the criminal liability for offence under Section 138 of NI Act cannot be fastened on the accused.
16. The accused has led direct evidence and has relied on the testimony and the evidence adduced by the complainant. He has pointed out material inconsistencies and contradictions in the case of the complainant. In light of the defense taken by the accused it can be clearly seen that the accused has been successful in raising a plausible doubt in the story of the complainant.The primary onus on the accused was to rebut the presumptions raised under Section 118(a) and section 139 of NI Act. The standard of proof required by the accused to discharge his burden is of preponderance of probabilities and he has sucessfully discharged his burden by punching holes in the version of the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39 has observed as under, "32. A Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal [(1999) 3 SCC 35] albeit in a civil case laid down the law in the following terms:
"Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.15 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:42 +0530 The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt"
17. Hence, in the light of discussions and the authorities cited in the aforegoing para(s), it is apparent that the case of the complainant company that the cheque in question was issued to the company by the accused for the purpose of discharging a existing legal debt or liability is unworthy of credit and fails to inspire the confidence of the court. The fact that the cheque was presented for more amount than the amount which was actually due towards the complainant company clearly indicates that the cheque was not issued in "discharge of any existing legally enforceable debt or other CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.16 of 17 Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.08 17:21:48 +0530 liability".Thus, it can be clearly said that the accused has rebutted the presumption raised under section 139 of NI Act. Thus, the second ingredient to the offence under section 138 of NI Act does not stands proved.
CONCLUSION:
18. To recapitulate the above discussion, the accused has been successful in establishing a probable defence on a standard of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act by punching the holes in the case of the complainant and making the case of the complainant doubtful. Cogent evidence is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction in a criminal trial. The accused has been successful in establishing a probable defence by way of pointing out the material inconsistencies in the case of the complainant and thereby proving that the cheque was not given in discharge of existing legal debt or liability owed to the complainant. In the result of the analysis of the present case, the accused Mukesh Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Shaktiman Krishak Seva Kendra Bulandshaher is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court
On 08.06.2023 Harjot Harjot Singh
Date:
Singh 2023.06.08
17:21:53
+0530
(Harjot Singh)
M.M (N.I.Act),Digital Court-01
PHC/New Delhi/08.06.2023
CC No. 3643-2021 UPL LIMITED Vs. M/S SHAKTIMAN KRISHAK SEWA KENDRA Page No.17 of 17