Delhi District Court
Complainant vs Rakesh Kumar ... Accused on 31 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT) - 08
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Apoorv Bhardwaj
In case of:-
SANJAY THAKUR
... Complainant
VERSUS
RAKESH KUMAR ... Accused
JUDGMENT
a) Sl no. of the case : 31831/2018
b) CNR of the case : DLSW020370992018
c) Date of institution 28.09.2018
d) Name, parentage and Sanjay Thakur
address of the S/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh
complainant : R/o H.No. G-130, Arya Samaj Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059
e) Name, parentage and Rakesh Kumar
address of the accused S/o Sh. Om Prakash
persons: R/o H. No. C-69, Arya Samaj Road,
Utam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059
Also at
Rakesh Tea Stall, Shop No. WZ-151,
Shree Ram Complex, Arya Samaj
Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -
110059
f) Offence complained of : 138 NI Act
g) Total cheque amount : Rs 85,000/-
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
i) Arguments heard on : 25.02.2023
j) Final order : Convicted
k) Date of Judgment : 31.03.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') by the complainant against the accused.
Factual Matrix
2. As per the complainant's affidavit, the complainant was having a shop with the name and style of M/s Paridhan Vatika. The accused used to serve tea at the shop of the complainant. For this reason, friendly relations developed between the parties and on the basis of this, the accused approached the complainant for availing the friendly loan of Rs.85,000/- for his personal needs. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.85,000/- was advanced to the accused by the complainant in the month of May, 2017 for a period of 12 months. After the lapse of this period and some persuasion the accused agreed to return the loan amount in the first week of July, 2018. Thereafter in the first week of July, 2018, the accused came to the house of the complainant at G -130, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and handed over the cheque in question i.e. cheque bearing no. 000070 dated 14.07.2018 for a sum of Rs Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 2 of 19 85,000/- drawn on Bank of India. Thereafter, the complainant presented this cheque to his bank i.e Oriental Bank of Commerce, Uttam Nagar Branch New Delhi. However, the same was returned unpaid for the reason "Funds Insufficient'' vide returning memo dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, despite issuance of legal demand notice to the accused, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days thereof and hence the present case.
3. Upon a prima facie consideration of pre-summoning evidence, cognizance of offence under section 138 NI Act was taken and the accused was summoned. Thereafter, separate notice explaining the accusation was put to the accused under section 251 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage the accused admitted his signatures but denied having filled the material particulars. He also stated that he did not receive the legal demand notice. In his defence he stated that the cheque in question was given as a blank signed security cheque while taking a loan of Rs.20,000/-from the complainant. The said cheque has been misused by the complainant. Thereafter he was permitted to cross examine the complainant's witnesses under Section 145 (2) NI Act.
4. The complainant examined himself as CW-1 and adopted his pre-summoning evidence as his post-summoning evidence and relied on his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and the following documents:-
a) Ex.CW1/1 i.e. the cheque in question.
b) Ex. CW1/2 i.e. the returning memo.
c) Ex.CW1/3 i.e. the legal notice.
d) Ex.CW1/4 i.e. the tracking report.
Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 3 of 19
5. During his cross examination, the complainant stated that he was running M/s Paridhan Vatika as a Proprietor up to the year 2014. Thereafter, he closed that shop. He had known the accused for the last 35-40 years. The accused used to supply tea at his shop. Upon being asked as to what kind of relations he had with the accused, the complainant stated that his relations were normal. Even after closing the shop, the accused used to visit his residence for supplying tea whenever there used to be a function. The loan was advanced by him to the accused at his residence in presence of his wife. The cheque in question was handed over to him at his residence by the accused, however, nobody else was present at that time.
6. In the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC, he stated that he had been running his tea stall in front of the shop of the complainant for the last twenty years and therefore they had friendly relations. He had taken a loan of only Rs 20,000/- from the complainant which was to be repaid along with interest. The understanding was that he had to pay Rs.1000/- per month till the time he is unable to pay the entire loan amount of Rs.20,000/- upfront. The cheque in question was given as a blank signed security cheque for availing the above said loan. After Corona, he was unable to make the payment towards interest and therefore the complainant misused this cheque to file a case against him. He did not receive the legal demand notice and neither the address mentioned thereon belongs to him. He did not lead evidence in his defence.
7. During the course of final arguments Ld counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has duly proved his Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 4 of 19 case by placing on record the entire documentary evidence. He also submitted that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption against him. Specifically, he agitated the following grounds ● Application moved on behalf of the accused under Section 145 (2) NI Act was emphasised upon. My attention was drawn to para no.3 of this application in which it is stated - "accused had no liability towards the complainant as an individual and the money in questions has already been adjusted between the complainant and the applicant".
(emphasis supplied). Ld. counsel has submitted that "money in questions" means the loan amount of Rs.85,000/- and therefore, there is an express admission by the accused that a loan amount of Rs.85,000/- was taken by him.
● Defence of the accused had undergone a sea change after moving an application under Section 145 (2) NI Act and before the cross examination of the complainant.
● The present case dates way back to the year 2018 whereas the covid-19 pandemic struck in the year 2020. Therefore the defence taken by the accused that he could not pay the instalments due to the pandemic is prima facie baseless.
● The address mentioned at the time of recording of statement of the accused under Section 294 CrPC on 20.04.2022 is the same address as mentioned in the memo of parties. Therefore, it can be inferred that legal demand notice has been sent on the correct Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 5 of 19 address and it shall be presumed to have been delivered as per section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
● The accused did not raise the defence that he had taken a loan of only Rs 20,000/- at the first possible opportunity i.e. upon receiving the legal demand notice therefore it is a creation of an afterthought. ● Failure of the accused to have issued 'stop payment' instructions to his banker also makes his version highly unbelievable.
● He relied on the following cases:-
i. Arvind Kumar Minhas v Neeraj Kumar 2018 (2) DCR 4 ii. Dr Kailash v Sayyad Khwaja 2018 (2) DCR 384 iii. Neminathan v Subramaniam 2018 (2) DCR 469 iv. Bhawish Chand Sharma v Bawa Singh 2018 (2) DCR 771 v. Shankaranarayana Shetty v M Chandru 2018 (1) DCR 267 vi. Suresh Thomas v Mod Enterprises 2017 (2) DCR 145 vii. Dipankar Majumdar v Sandipan Ghosh 2017 (2) DCR 180 viii. Vijay Power Generators v Annai Engineering Works 2014 (3) DCR 182 ix. Anand v M/S Step in Computer Shoppe 2014 (3) DCR 228 x. Venkatesh Prasad v Subray V. Bhat 2014 (2) DCR 93 xi. Janardan Singh v State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) 2014 (1) DCR 151 Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 6 of 19 xii. Shailender Alva v Nagesh 2008 (1) DCR 206 xiii. P Rasiya v Abdul Nazer and Anr. Crl Appeal No 1233-1235 of 2022 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12.08.2022 xiv. M Abbas Haj v T N Channakeshava Crl Appeal No. 664 of 2012 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 19.09.2019 xv. Srichand and Shivan Das v The State 28 (1985) DLT 360
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has been able to sufficiently rebut the presumption raised against him. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the accused are briefly encapsulated hereunder :-
● "Moneys in question" in para no. 3 of application under section 145(2) NI Act means the loan amount of Rs 20,000/- (and not Rs 85,000). Further, there is a specific denial of loan of Rs 85,000/- and issuance of cheque in discharge of that alleged liability in the very next paragraph.1 Further, the application has been moved after framing of notice under section 251 CrPC in which the accused had already stated that he had taken a loan of only Rs 20,000/- therefore the question of afterthought or improving the version does not arise.
● The accused is a layman and a man of humble means. He does not even know how to read and write 1 Para 4 of Application under section 145(2) NI Act moved on behalf of the accused states - " That the debt mentioned by the complainant for Rs 85,000/- which is as per the verdict of the complainant was supposed to be repaid by accused through cheque bearing no. 000070 dated 14.07.2018 drawn on Bank of India branch Uttam Nagar (Delhi), is completely wrong. The said cheque was security cheque and also not given in the name of the complainant."
Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 7 of 19 in English. The signatures on the cheque have also been done in Hindi whereas the remaining cheque has been filled in English language. This proves that the cheque was a blank signed cheque which has been filled later on by a person other than the accused.
● The parties did not have friendly relations. The complainant has admitted that the accused used to sell tea outside his shop. During his cross-examination he stated that his relations with the complainant were 'normal' as against friendly/amicable or any other such term. ● From the affidavit of the complainant it appears that the accused used to sell tea outside his shop and therefore on the basis of this acquaintance he advanced a loan of Rs 85,000/- to the accused. The complainant deliberately concealed the fact that this shop was already shut down in the year 2014. Therefore, the version of the complainant that the loan was advanced in the year 2017 cannot be believed.
● The complainant has stated that even after closure of his shop the accused used to come to his house for supplying tea during functions. This statement is contrary to normal human conduct and a tea-seller is not called by people to supply tea in their family functions. Generally, people order outside food or snacks or go for catering. This statement has been made by the complainant to only give some sham Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 8 of 19 possibility to his continued acquaintance with the accused after the year 2014.
● The complainant has filed only one tracking report whereas postal receipts are two. The complainant has deliberately not filed the tracking report pertaining to postal receipt bearing consignment no. ED842364388IN. The addresses mentioned in the memo of parties are incorrect. The complainant merely runs a tea-stall outside a shop therefore his stall does not have any permanent address. ● Both parties had also executed documents pertaining to the loan of Rs 20,000/-. These documents are in the possession of the complainant and he did not produce them deliberately.
It was prayed that the accused be acquitted.
Legal Position:-
9. Before proceeding further to reflect upon the defence and evaluation of evidence, the foremost check point is whether the facts averred by the complainant fulfil the basic statutory requirement for constituting an offence under section 138 NI Act.
To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following:-
● The accused must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
● The cheque should have been issued for the Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 9 of 19 discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
● That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
● That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
● The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
● The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
Being cumulative it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under section 138 NI Act.
10. It is apt to discuss that a negotiable instrument including a cheque Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 10 of 19 carries following presumptions in terms of Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act.
Section 118 of the NI 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"
Thus, the combined effect of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
11. For appreciating the legal position, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 wherein it was held that:
"22. Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 11 of 19 criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact."
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as K.N. Beena vs. Munyappan and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 289.
12.Further, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Basalingappa v Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 summarised the principles related to sections 118(a) and 139 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 the 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.
Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 12 of 19 From the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforesaid judgements, it is clear that for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act have to be compulsorily raised as soon as execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter, burden is shifted to the accused to prove otherwise.
Whether presumption under section 118 (a) and 139 NI Act can be drawn against the accused
13.Evaluating the facts of the present case in the light of the above provision this court deems it fit to first consider as to whether the complainant has prima facie proved the issuance of cheque by the accused towards the legal liability in favour of the complainant from the account maintained by him, so as to constitute an offence under section 138 NI Act. To carve out a prima facie case the complainant has filed on record original cheque as Ex. CW1/1. The said cheque was presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it was drawn and was returned dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient". The return memo dated 20.07.2018 bearing the fact of dishonour of cheque in question has been exhibited by the complainant as Ex. CW1/2. The complainant then sent a legal notice, Ex CW1/3 (colly) dated 14.08.2018 on 16.08.2018 i.e. within the period of statutory requirement of 30 days from the date of receipt of information of dishonour. The original postal receipt of the legal demand notice has been filed as Ex. CW1/3(colly).
Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 13 of 19
14.In the present case the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but denied having filled material particulars on it. He has also denied having received the legal demand notice and has also denied that the address mentioned thereon belongs to him. However, perusal of record shows that two addresses have been mentioned on the legal demand notice. First - H. No. C-69, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059 (hereafter "Address 1") and second - Rakesh Tea Stall, Shop No. WZ 151, Shree Ram Complex, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
- 59 (hereafter, "Address 2"). As far as Address 1 is concerned, the complainant has filed a postal receipt pertaining to it, a tracking report with remarks "item delivered" and the same address has been mentioned by the accused on his bail bonds. The accused has not disputed these postal receipts although Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the tracking report merely says that the articles have been delivered to "D.K. Mohan Garden S.O." and not to the accused. However, considering that the Address 1 is the same address mentioned by the accused at the time of filing his bail bonds, since the legal demand notice was properly addressed and posted, it is presumed to have been delivered under section 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, "Evidence Act"). Moreover, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C C Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammad (2007) 6 SCC 555, the accused not having paid the amount of cheque in question within 15 days of service of summons to him, he cannot be allowed to take the plea that legal demand notice was never sent to him.
15. The above facts suffice in raising the presumption under Section Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 14 of 19 118(a) & 139 NI Act in favour of the complainant and against both accused no.1 and accused no.2. In Rangappa v Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 451, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 139 raises a presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and not simple existence of debt or liability. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested.
16. When the presumption is raised in favour of the complainant, the burden is shifted on the accused to disprove the case of the complainant by rebutting the presumption raised in favour of the complainant. Being the rule of reverse onus, it is the duty of the accused to prove that he does not owe any liability towards the complainant. The accused can displace this presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as is the general rule in criminal cases. The accused has to make out a fairly plausible defence which is acceptable to the court. This the accused can do either by leading his own evidence or by raising doubt /demolishing the material or evidence brought on record by the complainant. With this in mind, this court now proceeds to discuss the defence of the accused.
Whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against him:-
17. I have duly considered the arguments and the judgments cited at bar.
18. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the loan Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 15 of 19 amount has been admitted by the accused in his application under section 145 (2) N.I. Act. I do not find force in this argument and I am in respectful agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the accused on the aspect that the phrase "moneys in question" either meant Rs 20,000/- or was vague at best. Moreover, considering that this defence was disclosed at the stage of framing of notice itself and the application under section 145(2) N.I Act was moved subsequently, I also do not suspect any afterthought or divergence in defence.
19. Next, it was argued that the parties did not have friendly relations. The social disparity between the parties is apparent, however, the accused has stated at the stage of recording of his statement under section 313 CrPC that the parties had a friendly relationship. The complainant also stated that he has known the accused for 35-40 years. No suggestion to the contrary was given. The case of the accused is not that he did not have any friendly relationship with the complainant and has never taken any loan from him. His case is that he had taken a loan of only Rs 20,000/- from the complainant. Therefore, it stands established that there existed a relationship between the parties on the basis of which the accused had taken some loan from the complainant.
20. The only point of divergence is on the quantum of loan actually taken by the accused i.e. whether it was Rs 20,000/- on interest or Rs 85,000/- without interest. To prove this defence, the accused has not led any cogent evidence in his support. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused has tried to demolish the case of the complainant by pointing out that the complainant had already closed his shop in the year 2014 and therefore no loan could have Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 16 of 19 been advanced by him in the year 2017. The logic behind the argument is that since the proximity between the tea stall of the accused and the place of work of the complainant ended, there could not have been any financial transaction between the two. I have duly considered this submission. In the view of this court, the closure of the shop in the year 2014 is not a strong circumstance to rebut the presumption against the accused once acquaintance of around 30-40 years is not strongly disputed. Further, the defence of the accused is not that no loan was ever advanced to him by the complainant rather it is only the quantum of loan which is disputed. The accused has not averred anywhere during the trial the approximate date of availing the alleged loan of Rs 20,000/-. He had four opportunities to do so; first at the stage of framing of notice under section 251 CrPC, second - at the stage of moving an application under section 145 (2) N.I. Act, third - during the cross-examination of the complainant (as suggestions) and lastly - at the stage of recording of his statement under section 313 CrPC. On all these four occasions there is an eerie silence on the aspect that when did he avail this loan of Rs 20,000/- i.e. whether he availed it prior to 2014 or post it. This vagueness and ambiguity in the defence raised by the accused, also renders the closure of the shop in the year 2014 to be a very weak circumstance to rebut the presumption against the accused.
21. The above said argument does not inspire the confidence of this court for one more reason. The tea stall of the accused, the residence of the complainant and his subsequent place of business all appear to be in the same vicinity i.e. Uttam Nagar. Moreover, as per the version of the accused himself, it is not his case that Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 17 of 19 after 2014 he never met the accused or that there was no interaction, rather he has stated that he was required to pay instalments of Rs 1000/- per month to the complainant. Therefore, the argument that the acquaintance between the parties came to an end in the year 2014 can be safely discarded.
22. As already noted, the accused has not placed on record any evidence to prove on a scale of preponderance of probabilities that he had actually availed a loan of only Rs 20,000/- from the complainant. Accused had several options before him. He could have sought to examine any person from Ashoka documents to prove that a loan agreement of Rs 20,000/- was entered between him and the complainant.2 He could have examined any other witness with respect to that transaction. He could have examined any person in presence of whom he had paid any instalment of Rs 1000/- to the complainant. However, for reasons best known to the accused no such step has been taken.
23.Moreover, under the apprehension of his cheque being misused, any prudent person would have issued 'stop payment' instructions to his banker. However, for reasons best known to the accused, he did not take any such step. This omission on his part also makes his version very unreliable.
24. Further, the explanation given by the accused that he could not pay remaining instalments due to corona is absolutely baseless since the present case has already been filed in the year 2018 i.e. much before the pandemic.
2A suggestion was put to the complainant during cross-examination - "It is wrong to suggest that the accused had asked for loan of Rs 20,000/- for which he had also got prepared the documents from Ashoka Documents shop"
Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 18 of 19
25. Lastly, it is trite that averment that a blank signed security cheque has been misused is no defence unless the accused can prove on a scale of preponderance of probabilities that he did not have a crystallised legal liability co-extensive to the cheque amount on the date of presentation of the cheque. Accused has failed to discharge this burden. Reliance can be placed on Bir Singh v Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, Credential Leasing & Credits Ltd. v Shruti Investment 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10061 and The Jammu and Kashmir Bank v Abhishek Mittal, Crl. A. No. 294/2011 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.05.2011.
26. For all the above noted reasons, this court comes to the conclusion that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption against him.
27. In view of the evidence adduced, documents put forth and arguments advanced by the parties and further in view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered view that the accused Sh. Rakesh Kumar is guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is hereby convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Announced in open court on 31.03.2023 Judgment consists of 19 pages.
Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ Date:
2023.03.31
17:29:39 +0530
APOORV BHARDWAJ
MM-08 (NI Act)
SOUTH WEST:DWARKA COURTS.
N.D/31.03.2023
Ct No. 31831/2019 Sanjay Thakur v. Rakesh Kumar page no. 19 of 19