Delhi District Court
Rumneek Baba vs Alok Gupta on 15 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAM GUPTA. : LD. JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-NI ACT, DIGITAL COURT-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS COMPLEX:
NEW DELHI
Rumneek Bawa & Anr
Versus
Alok Gupta
CC No. 5582-2022
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CNR number : DLND02-013123-2022
2. Name of the complainant : 1. Mr. Rumneek Bawa S/o: Sh.
S.S. Bawa
2. Mrs. Munnan Zarina Bawa
W/o: Rumneek Bawa
Both R/o: House Number 37, Church
Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-
110025
3. Name of the accused, parentage : Mr. Alok Gupta
and residential address S/o: Sh. D.V.Gupta
R/o: 7, Park Lane, Church Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
Ph: 9810014472, 9990466666
CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 1 of 37
Digitally signed
by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:54:09 +0530
Email: [email protected]
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : CONVICTION
7. Date of judgment/order : 15.02.2025
Date of filing of complaint: 04.06.2022
Date of reserving judgment: 21.01.2025
Date of judgment: 15.02.2025
ARGUING COUNSELS
For the Complainant : Sh. Kapil Gupta, Ld. Counsel
For the Accused : Sh. Abhinav Mukherjee, Ld. Senior Counsel
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by Mr. Rumneek Bawa along with Mrs. Munnan Zarina Bawa (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant no. 1 and the complainant no. 2 respectively') against Mr. Alok Gupta (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused person') U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 r/w Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 2 of 37 Digitally signedSHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:54:15 +0530 Brief facts:
2. It is the case of the complainants that the accused person gained their trust and he misused the sentiments of the complainants, and cajoled the complainant into lending him a total sum of Rs. 88,30,000/-. That, apart from this, the complainants also handed over jewellery worth Rs. 25,00,000/- to the accused. Thus a total sum of Rs. 1,13,30,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand only) has been taken by the accused from the complainants. When the complainants demanded the money back from the accused person, he kept delaying the same. That, a loan agreement dated 03.09.2020 was executed, where the accused person agreed in case of failure/default in repaying the loan amount before 10.09.2020, he shall pay a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month over and above the loan amount, till actual repayment of the entire loan amount. That the accused person failed to abide by the agreement and acknowledgment dated 09.09.2020 was given by the accused. Then again an acknowledgment dated 09.10.2020 was given by the accused person. That, when the complainant presented the three cheques given with the agreement and acknowledgments, all the cheques were dishonoured. That, a meeting took place between the accused and the complainant when the accused received legal demand notice for the above said three cheques. In the meeting the accused acknowledged the receiving of the loan amount, and the accused person paid an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the complainant. That, the accused person still failed to repay the remaining loan amount and the accused kept on handing over cheques (which are not the cheques in question). Thereafter, the accused person sent an email dated 30.01.2022, containing a letter dated 30.01.2022, whereby CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 3 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:54:19 +0530 he acknowledged the entire sequence of events and he physically handed over the cheque in question, which consisted of the principal and the interest amount.
DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES IN QUESTION:
Cheque Cheque Date of the Cheque Date of Reasons number amount cheque drawn on return for memo dishonour 993659 Rs. 30.03.2022 Punjab 31.03.2022 Account 1,40,00,00 National Blocked 0/- bank That, the complainants presented the cheque to their banker i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vasant Kunj North, New Delhi, however it was returned back vide return memo, with the endorsement "Account Blocked". The complainants after receipt of the said dishonoured cheques, sent a legal notice dated 25.04.2022 in writing to the accused through his counsel which was dispatched on 26.04.2022 through speed post and courier. The accused had failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainants within stipulated time of 15 days, hence this complaint U/S 138/142 NI Act.CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 4 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:54:25 +0530
Proceedings before the Court:
3. The complaint was received by assignment in this Court. After perusing the complaint and hearing the arguments of the complainant on the point of summoning of the accused, prima facie it appeared that the offence U/S 138 NI Act, has been made out. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act was taken against the accused on 21.11.2022 and summons were issued to the accused.
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 21.07.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the accused person filed an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act and considering the defence stated by the accused, and no objection by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, this court decided to allow cross examination of the complainants as per 145(2) of the NI Act, and the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant evidence, complainant no. 1 examined himself as sole witness CW-
1. After due cross-examination of CW-1 by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, complainant's evidence was closed in the present case on 25.10.2024. Statement of the accused U/Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 28.11.2024 wherein the accused stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence. Thus defence evidence was closed by the order of the court on the same day. On 17.01.2025, the final arguments of the complainants were heard at length and on 21.01.2025, final arguments of the accused person were heard at length. Both the parties also filed their written submissions.CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 5 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:54:29 +0530
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, complainant no. 1 has examined himself as CW1 and has led his evidence by way of evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:-
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT No. 1. Driving license of the complainant CW1/1 OSR 2. True copy of of the loan agreement dated 03.09.2020 CW1/2 OSR 3. True copy of the acknowledgment dated 09.09.2020 CW1/3 OSR 4. True copy of the acknowledgment dated 09.10.2020 CW1/4 OSR 5. Cheque bearing number 609155 dated 10.09.2020 CW1/5 OSR 6. Return memo dated 23.11.2020 CW1/6 OSR 7. Cheque bearing number 609158 dated 09.09.2020 CW1/7 OSR 8. Return memo dated 23.11.2020 CW1/8 OSR 9. Cheque bearing number 609164 dated 09.10.2020 CW1/9 OSR 10. Return memo dated 23.11.2020 CW1/10 OSR CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 6 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:54:33 +0530 11. True copy of legal demand notice dated 11.12.2020 CW1/11 12. True copy of minutes of meeting dated 12.12.2020 CW1/12 OSR 13. Cheque bearing number 609165 dated 31.01.2021 CW1/13 OSR 14. Cheque bearing number 609168 dated 28.02.2021 CW1/14 OSR 15. Cheque bearing number 993658 dated 30.04.2021 CW1/15 OSR
16. True copy of email dated 30.01.2022 containing letter CW1/16 dated 30.01.2022 OSR
17. Certificate u/S 65B of IEA CW1/17
18. Cheque bearing number 993659 dated 30.03.2022 CW1/18 OSR 19. Return memo dated 31.03.2022 CW1/19 OSR
20. True copies of medical records CW1/20 Colly
21. True copies of legal notice dated 25.04.2022 along with CW1/21 CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 7 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:54:37 +0530 postal and courier receipts and tracking report, email Colly acknowledgment
6. The accused person has not examined himself as a witness, nor has he brought any document on record.
Arguments of both parties:
7. COMPLAINANT'S ARGUMENTS The complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint has argued that all the requirements of Section 138, NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainants are ailing senior citizens, who have been duped of their life time savings by the Accused by gaining their trust. The accused person despite admitting the issuance of cheque in question supported by plethora of documents comprising of loan agreement, letters, emails, cheques, etc., have reneged from fulfilling his promise and discharging his liability of Rs.1,40,00,000/- by getting the cheque dishonored on presentation and inspite of receipt of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the amount within stipulated period of 15 days. Thus all the requirements of Section 138 NI Act, have been fulfilled by the Complainants in the present case. Further the Ld. Counsel has argued:CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 8 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:54:43 +0530
Firstly, the accused in his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature and that he received the legal notice to which no reply was ever given by him.
Secondly, the accused in his Reply to the Application of the complainants under Section l43A of NI Act at Para 7(1) has admitted the liability of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and the defence raised is that the said amount was repaid in cash but neither any document has been placed on record nor any suggestion to the said effect was given to the CW-1 in his cross examination.
Thirdly, the accused has neither disputed his acquaintance with the Complainants nor placed on record any document nor any witness nor put any question to CW-1 refuting the execution of the said documents. lnfact, there is not even a single suggestion to CW-1 with regards to the liability of the Accused. Thus all the said documents and contents therein stand admitted by the Accused.
Fourthly, the Accused has though disputed the liability and also the issuance of cheque but at the same time has not explained as to how the said cheques including cheque in question reached the Complainants.
Lastly, the accused has been taking contradictory and self-destructive stands, inasmuch as, he in his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. admits the issuance of cheque but in Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. disputes the same. Further, he in his Reply to the Application of the Complainants under Section 143A of NI Act at Para 7(I) has admitted the liability of CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 9 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:54:47 +0530 Rs.1,40,00,000/- and then in his Reply to the Application of the Complainants under Section 421 CrPC at Para 12 states that his admitted liability is only Rs.45,00,000/- and not Rs.1,40,00,000/- and in his Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he disputes any liability towards Complainants. Moreover, the Accused in his Reply to the Application of the Complainants under Section 421 Cr.P.C at Paras 10 to 13 has admitted to the execution of the Loan Agreement dated
03.09.2020 and in his Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has denied executing the same. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following judgments:
a) Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418
b) Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898
c) Rohitbhai J. Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0393/2019 Therefore, the presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act has been raised and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
The complainant has further argued that the accused has not been able to raise any probable defence. Therefore, accused be convicted for the offence U/S 138 NI Act with maximum punishment.
8. ACCUSED'S ARGUMENTS Per contra, the Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person while opposing the present case has argued that no record has been produced before this Hon'ble Court to establish that the complainant has advanced any money or given any jewellery to the accused person, except for the unsubstantiated CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 10 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:54:52 +0530 unverified averments. The interchangeable claim that Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) is towards payment of penalty/interest has been made by the complainant to confuse the Hon'ble Court and obfuscate the fact that this alleged payment was, penalty.
Argument A :Penalty for breach of contract is not a debt or liability under Section 138 NI Act:
The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person has further argued that the complainants are trying to recover the penalty amount allegedly payable by the accused through the present proceedings for alleged breach of time payment for alleged repayment of loan. The Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is mentioned as penalty in the legal notice (Legal Notice 1) on 11th December, 2020 and again in the legal notice (Legal Notice
2) dated 25th April, 2022. Further, the complainant in his evidence by way of affidavit as CW1 has also stated "a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month over and above the loan amount, till actual repayment of the loan amount". The Ld. Senior Counsel while referring to section 73 and 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter ICA) has argued, penalty clauses / clauses imposing liquidated damages are not per se enforceable for the sum named therein and that only reasonable compensation as is proved by the claimant is to be awarded. In effect, penalty clauses are per se unenforceable and amounts claimed therein cannot be awarded until and unless proof of the said damages is furnished and accepted after adjudication by the appropriate court. For the above argument reliance is placed on:CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 11 of 37 Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:54:57 +0530 A. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. [(2015) 4 SCC 136] B. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Offshore InfrastructureLtd., Mumbai [2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4146] C. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/s DhampurSugarMills [FAO (OS) (COMM) 125 / 2022] Thus, the Ld. Senior Counsel has argued that the Complainants are required to prove the alleged amount of penalty/debt/liability and then only a reasonable amount can be awarded in favour of the Complainants by a Civil Court upon proof of loss, and that all of the above is a matter of civil court and cannot be adjudicated in a criminal case. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 138 of NI Act, hence, the present complaint ought to be rejected. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person then referred to certain judgments of the Delhi Courts which have applied the above principle of law. The Ld. Counsel has also relied upon P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited [(2021) 6 SCC 258, wherein it is clearly stated that Section 138 of NI Act is a hybrid provision to enforce payment under a bounced cheque if it is otherwise enforceable in civil law.
Argument B: A third party cannot prosecute the drawer of the cheque:
The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person has argued that legal demand notice is not a notice issued under Section 138 of NI Act, in as much as it is a CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 12 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:55:01 +0530 joint legal notice by the Complainants and asks the Accused to make good various amounts allegedly payable as penalty. Further, that the complainant number 2 has no locus in the present complaint, the only reason, to make Complainant No.2 a party is because she is the joint holder of the account vide which the Complaint No. 1 has allegedly given money to the Accused, the same has been admitted by Complainant No.1 during his cross-examination. For the above argument reliance has been placed upon Arvind Singh Rajpoot v. M/s Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd. [Crl. M. C. No. 938 / 2018] Argument C: Omnibus legal demand notice Relying upon Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals & Anr [(2008) 2SC 321], the Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person has further argued that legal demand notice 2 was sent for an alleged amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakh Only) which includes amounts with respect to the penalty as mentioned in the alleged Loan Agreement. The legal notice is also not one under section 138 NI Act as it is a joint notice for actual enforcement of penalty amount by third party as well. Therefore, in light of the above, the said legal notice is illegal and faulty, hence, the present complaint ought to be rejected and dismissed.
Argument D: Discrepancies in the complaint.
The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person has pointed out the discrepancies in the complaint:
● Complainants have not filed any ITR record to substantiate their claim.CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 13 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:55:06 +0530
● Reference of the word penalty and interest for the same amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
● Certificate of authentication under Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 of Complainant No.1 states "computer email dated 30.01.2022 containing letter dated 20.02.022 sent by me to Accused" which is contrary to what is pleaded in the complaint at para 17, i.e., "Accused sent an email dated 30.01.2022 containing letter dated 30.01.2022" ● The printed date on the affidavits are all May 2020 but they have been notarized on 18th May 2022.
● The complainant allegedly started giving money to the accused from March, 2018 till August, 2020. However, the alleged Loan Agreement was executed on 3rd September, 2020 which shows that the said agreement, if any, was executed subsequently and was just an afterthought on the Complainants' end and was created by using blank papers, deceit and forgery.
● The Complainant No.1 has alleged that he paid Rs. 1,65,000/- in cash to the Accused right up to August, 2020 but in the same breath, he says that he demanded repayment of the amount in August, 2020. This shows that the case set up by the complainants is completely false, as it is not normal human conduct to lend money while immediately asking for its return at the same time. Further there is no proof to show the alleged jewellery given to the accused nor is there any record to show the source of Rs.1,65,000/- per month as alleged to have been paid which is a substantial part of the alleged loan amounting to Rs.36,30,000/-.CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 14 of 37 Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:55:11 +0530 ● The fact that Complainant has deliberately chosen not to file his bank record, Income Tax Returns and other Financial Statements that are required to be maintained by law draws adverse inference against the complainant as they have withheld the best possible evidence from the court. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Sushil Kumar Crl LP No. 622/2016 vide judgment dated 30.8.2024 neutral citation 2024:DHC:6566 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has acquitted an accused under section 138 NI Act in absence of financial statements being filed by Complainants.
Argument E: False case set up.
The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person has further argued that the accused person has denied the loan transaction by stating that the same was only for Rs. 45,00,000/-, in the notice framed under Section 251 of CrPC as well as the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. Further in the written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person stated that an amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was written in the reply to Section 143A application. The same was a mistake in the pleadings by the counsel for the accused as it is the clear case of the accused that he had only taken a loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs) from the Complainant No.1 that stands repaid as a course of business dealings. Further it is stated without prejudice and in the alternative in case the said statement is read, it is to be read in its entirety and cannot be dissected as is being sought to be done. At best the statement shows that the Accused has paid back the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore Forty Lakhs) that includes penalty CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 15 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:55:16 +0530 amount to the Complainant. The entire submission of the Accused in the said Application ought to be considered as a whole and not just a part of it. The Privy Council in the decision of Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas [42 Ind. App. 103 / 1951 SCC OnLine PC 10] has held that it is impermissible to accept part and reject part of admission in pleadings by dissecting the same. That such admission is to be accepted in its entirety or not et al. This view has been consistently followed by all Hon'ble Courts in India in judgments such as J. Mc. Gaffin v . LIC [AIR 1978 Calcutta 123], etc. The Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 343] while dealing with a criminal case has applied the aforesaid principle and held that "An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all." In the case of K.S. Srinivasan v. UOI [AIR 1958 SC 419] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held "an admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, though it may in certain circumstances operate as an estoppel." Thus if the said statement has to be accepted then it has to be accepted that the entire alleged amount due including penalty stands paid. In any event in the light of the aforesaid statement of law the said alleged incorrect statement made by error of counsel, the loosely drafted statement cannot be construed to convict the accused when the complainant has itself at the threshold not been able to establish existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and is admittedly seeking recovery of penalty. Thus, he argued that the complaint should be dismissed and the accused be acquitted.CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 16 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:55:31 +0530
9. COMPLAINANT'S REBUTTAL
The Ld. Counsel for the complainants in rebuttal has stated that the complainants have presumption u/s 139, NI Act in his favour and the accused was supposed to rebut the presumptions by raising a probable defence and substantiating it with evidence. Further, the Ld. Counsel has stated that the accused person has disputed all the documents but not a single suggestion has been put to the complainant no. 1 during his cross examination as CW1. Further, the accused has not given any explanation as to why the impugned cheque was handed over to the complainant. Section 74 of ICA stipulates penalty can be awarded but it cannot be more than the amount, and there is an admission on part of the accused thus the onus of the complainant under Section under 74 of ICA is discharged. The accused person issued the cheque along with the covering letter and there are acknowledgements by the accused person. The Ld. Counsel for the complainants submitted that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person are not applicable in the present case as the same are on different facts, inasmuch as, in those cases the liability was disputed but in the present case, the accused has categorically admitted the liability, the loan agreement and other supporting letters, emails, cheques including the cheque in question. The judgment cited by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Accused i.e. Arvind Singh Rajpoot (Supra) is not applicable as in the said judgment the complaint was filed by the wrong complainant. However in the present case, the case has been filed by two complainants being husband and wife who had given loan to the accused and the cheque in question was also put in the joint account of the complainants. The same is also supported by the CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 17 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:55:36 +0530 judgment passed in 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar' [MANU/BH/1035/2017], wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Patna relying upon the catena of judgments has held that complaint by two complainants is maintainable. The Accused has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul Builders (Supra), to state that receipt of legal notice by the accused is sine qua non for maintainability of a complaint under NI Act and argued that the Accused in the present case has not received the Legal Notice and thus complaint be dismissed. However, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused while relying upon the judgment failed to take note of the fact that the Accused in his statement dated 21.07.2023 under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has admitted the receipt of the said legal notice, thus the said judgment is of no help to the Accused. In fact, it is settled law that admission of receipt of notice by accused without any response or compliance thereof lead to presumption of liability and thus adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the accused.
Legal Provisions
10. I have heard counsels on behalf of both sides and perused the record carefully.
11. Before deciding the present complaint case, let the legal provisions be considered.
"Section 138.- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 18 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:55:40 +0530
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that 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 that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:"
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:
(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 19 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.02.15 16:55:44 +0530 to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation -- for the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
For fastening liability U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, following are the requirements :-
I. Drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, II. The cheque was issued for payment to another person for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
III. Cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. RBI in its notification DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 has reduced the aforesaid period from 6 months to 3 months.CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 20 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:55:48 +0530
IV. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque;
V. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount;
VI. Failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
The offence under Section 138, NI Act is made out against the drawer of the cheque, only when all the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled.
12. Further Section 118 Clause (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumptions regarding the consideration for the Negotiable Instruments. It reads as under: -
"That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under
:- "The court shall, in respect of every proceedings under CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 21 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:55:53 +0530 this chapter on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon official mark denoting that the cheque has dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved."
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as under :-
"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, or any debt or other liability."
The combined reading of above said sections, 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. However, it is a settled principle of law that the presumption U/S 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence but the burden of proof is on the accused.
13. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof as recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa (Supra) 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 CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 22 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:55:57 +0530 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 imposes 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."CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 23 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:56:01 +0530
14. Now, it is upon the accused to displace this presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities and the lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt, but it need not be proved to the hilt or beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused can either prove that the liability did not exist or make the non-existence of liability so probable that a reasonable person ought under the circumstances of the case act on the supposition that it does not exist. Thus, the accused can do so either by leading his own evidence in defence or even by punching holes in the case of the complainant in cross-examination.
15. The accused has to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality. Only in a case where the accused comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, that the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted.
Appreciation of evidence:
16. Coming to the present case, the accused person has admitted his signatures on the cheque, thus the presumptions under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act are raised against him. The accused person has denied the legal liability by stating that he had taken a loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- and the same has been paid back to the complainants in cash. The question to be decided for ascertaining the liability of the accused person is: whether there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability to the extent mentioned in the cheque, against the accused?CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 24 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM
SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:56:05 +0530
17. The term "legally enforceable debt" is defined in the Explanation to Section 138 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. It refers to a debt or other liability that can be lawfully recovered through the due process of law. In order for Section 138 to apply, the debt or liability must be legally enforceable. As per Basalingappa (Supra) to rebut the presumption and prove to the contrary, it is open to the accused to raise a probable defence, wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The words 'until the contrary is proved' occurring in Section 139, do not mean that the accused must necessarily prove the negative that the instrument is not issued in discharge of any debt/liability, but the accused has two options. The first option is to prove that the debt/liability does not exist and conclusively establish with certainty that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The second option is to prove the non-existence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the circumstances of the case.
18. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person has argued that the complainants have not brought any record to establish that the complainants have advanced any money or given any jewellery to the accused person.
Recently in the case of Amit Jain Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr. CRL.A. 1248/2019 Pronounced on 16th August 2020, the hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held:
"14. When presumption under Section 139 was raised, Trial Court ought to have conducted proceedings basis CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 25 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:56:09 +0530 that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability towards the complainant. At this juncture, the onus was on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139. Had the accused been successful in rebutting said presumption, the onus would have then shifted onto the complainant/appellant. The fundamental flaw on part of Trial Court was failing to note effect of the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. As a result, Trial Court erroneously proceeded to deliberate upon want of evidence on part of appellant/complainant i.e. no interest was charged, friendly relations between the parties were not proved, financial capacity not established, and most importantly, guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. We often find that acquittals in Section 138 NI Act proceedings place the burden of proving the existence of the debt on the complainant, which is diametrically opposite to the presumption placed on the accused under Section 139 NI Act. The accused often gets away with an acquittal, despite having tendered and even admitting to the cheque, merely because the complainant is unable to produce documents to support the existence of the debt (usually in the form of a friendly loan provided in cash, CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 26 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:56:14 +0530 which does not have any document trail). It would be unwise for the court to not acknowledge that friendly cash loans are provided by parties, sometimes based on small savings of the lender. In these circumstances rather than focussing on the question as to why the accused gave the cheque in the first place (which he or she admits), the complainant is left unhinged for inability to provide any documentation. Often when accused is asked by the court, as to for what purpose they gave the cheque in the first place, a cogent and rational answer is not forthcoming."
It is well settled now that the complainant need not produce any document as there is presumption in his favour. Only in cases where the accused person has successfully rebutted the presumption the onus shifts back on the complainant. Furthermore in the present case there is a trail of documents on record.
19. The accused person has denied the trail of documents i.e.: loan agreement dated 03.09.2020 Ex. CW1/2, acknowledgment dated 09.09.2020 Ex. CW1/3, acknowledgment dated 09.10.2020 Ex. CW1/4, copy of minutes of meeting dated 12.12.2020 Ex. CW1/12 and the email dated 30.01.2022 containing a letter dated 30.01.2022 CW1/16 (Colly). When the above documents were put to the accused person while recording his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, he stated that the documents are false. However, there is nothing on record to show CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 27 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.02.15 16:56:18 +0530 that the above trail of documents is not genuine. In the reply to application under Section 421 of CrPC filed by the accused person, he has stated that he was induced to sign on blank papers as the complainant was in a dominant position. The onus was on the accused person to show that he was induced to sign the same. However the accused person has not stated anything to the effect in his defence taken under Section 251 of CrPC as well as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. On the contrary, in the statement under Section 313 of CrPC, the accused person has stated that he never executed any loan agreement with the complainant. Moreover the Ld. Counsel for the accused person has not given any suggestion to the complainant no. 1 during his cross examination as CW1 regarding the inducement as alleged by the accused person. As per the settled law in the case of A.E.G. Carpiet v. A.Y. Derian, Calcutta HC, AIR 1961 CAL 359, party has to put his case in cross-examination. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary it is right to conclude that the above trail of documents on official record is genuine. Thus it is right to conclude that the accused person has legally enforceable liability as per the documents on record. Moreover, Ex. CW1/16 Colly which is an email sent by "[email protected]" bears the name of the accused person. The accused person has nowhere denied that the same is not his email address. The same email address is also mentioned as the email address of the accused person mentioned in the memo of parties. In the absence of any specific denial by the accused person, it is right to presume that the above email address is that of the accused person. Thus, the accused person has also impliedly admitted the liability by acknowledging the series of events in the email dated 30.01.2022 which is Ex. CW1/16 (Colly.) Moreover, the loan CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 28 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:56:23 +0530 agreement which is Ex. CW1/2 is executed on a stamp paper, thus there is a presumption about the genuineness of the same. Therefore, the complainant was not required to bring anything else on record to substantiate their claim.
20. Argument A :Penalty for breach of contract is not a debt or liability under Section 138 NI Act:
It is correct that any stipulation in a contract in terrorem is a penalty and the Court is at the discretion of awarding to the aggrieved party only reasonable compensation, and not mandated to award the entire penalty sum as agreed upon between the parties by way of any contract. However, in the present case it is not the complainant who has imposed the penalty clause. Rather, a bare reading of the loan agreement Ex. CW1/2 and further acknowledgments indicate that the same are written in first person. This means that the accused has imposed the penalty upon himself, so as to show his bona fide. Moreover as discussed above, the accused person has admitted his liability. In this respect the facts of the present case are different from the judgments relied upon by the accused person:
a. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. [(2015) 4 SCC 136] b. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Offshore InfrastructureLtd., Mumbai [2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4146] c. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/s DhampurSugarMills [FAO (OS) (COMM) 125 / 2022] CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 29 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:56:27 +0530 Thus, the above penalty which is imposed by the accused person upon himself after the admission of the legal liability, is enforceable under civil law as well. Therefore, it is within four corners of the law laid down in P. Mohanraj & Ors. (Supra), wherein it is clearly stated that Section 138 of NI Act is a hybrid provision to enforce payment under a bounced cheque if it is otherwise enforceable in civil law. This court does not find any merit in the argument advanced by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused person due to the reasons discussed above.
21. Argument B: A third party cannot prosecute the drawer of the cheque:
It is correct that according to the Section 138 of NI Act, there cannot be two complainants; only the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque can file a complaint, meaning there can only be one complainant per case.
"142. Cognizance of offences.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque"
The payee in the cheque in question is complainant no. 1. Complainant number 2 is not even a holder in due course, her role is only that the amount was CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 30 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:56:33 +0530 transferred from the joint account of both the complainants. The question to be decided is whether making two complainants has prejudiced the rights of the accused person? The defence taken by the accused person is that he has already paid back the loan amount of Rs. 45 lakhs. Thus, making Mrs. Munnan Zarina Bawa W/o: Rumneek Bawa as complainant is not an incurable defect, as it has not prejudiced the rights of the accused person in any manner. Furthermore, as per the case of Arvind Singh Rajpoot (Supra,) the complaint was quashed as the complainant had no locus. However in the present case, even though complainant number 2 has no locus, but complainant number 1 has locus as he is the payee in the cheque in question. Therefore, this argument of the accused person does not hold any ground.
22. Argument C: Omnibus legal demand notice Prima facie perusal of the legal demand notice dated 25.04.2022, Ex.
CW1/21 (Colly), clearly shows that the complainants have not made an omnibus demand. Rather the complainant through his counsel has explicitly laid down the series of events and has shown how the accused person has himself arrived at the sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. The same is also clear from the email dated 30.01.2022, Ex. CW1/16, where the accused person has admitted that he is giving the cheque in question to settle the account. Therefore this argument of the accused person also fails.
CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 31 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15
16:56:37 +0530
23. Argument D: Discrepancies in the complaint None of the discrepancies pointed out by the accused person goes to the root of the case of the complainant so as to destroy the same. It has been argued on behalf of the accused person that there is no proof put on record by the complainant to show the alleged transactions. However, as already discussed above, the complainant was not required to bring any document, as the presumption was in his favour. The printed dates on the affidavits are contrary to notary dates and that Letter dated 30.01.2022 has been wrongly stated as 20.02.2022 in the certificate under Section 65B of IEA. These are only technical objections which should not come in the way of imparting substantial justice.
24. Argument E: False case set up The Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused merely relying upon the defence taken by the accused person in the notice framed under Section 251 of CrPC and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC has argued that the complainants have set up a false case. In contrast, the complainant has put the trail of documents on record, which have not been rebutted by the accused person.
25. Further in the written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person stated that an amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was written in the reply to Section 143A application. The same was a mistake in the pleadings by the counsel for the accused as it is the clear case of the accused that he had only taken a loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs) from the Complainant No.1 that stands repaid as a course of business dealings.
CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 32 of 37 Digitally signedSHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:56:56 +0530 At this stage it is important to transcribe the contrary defences taken by the accused person. In the notice framed under Section 251 of CrPC the accused took the defence that the loan amount was Rs. 45 lakhs and he has paid back some amount in cash. Then in the reply to application under Section 143A NI Act the accused person stated that he had returned the entire loan amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. Then again for the first time the accused person in his reply to application under Section 421 of CrPC took the defence that the complainant took signatures of the accused person by inducement on blank papers. Then, for the first time at the stage of final arguments, the accused in his application under Section 311 of CrPC stated that the accused had made a payment of Rs. 20 lakhs to the brother of the complainant. The application under Section 311 of CrPC filed on behalf of the accused person was dismissed vide separate order dated 04.01.2025, where along with the reasons for dismissal, the conduct of the accused person in delaying the matter was noted. Finally, in the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused person it has been stated the there was an inadvertent error on part of the counsel and the accused has paid back the entire amount of Rs. 45 lakhs, which is contrary to what the accused person stated in the defence taken under Section 251 of CrPC. The contradictory stances taken by the accused indicate the mala fide of the accused. Be that as it may, the accused person has not brought anything on record to show any of the above stances taken by him.
26. The accused person has not brought anything on record to show that he has paid back the entire loan amount of Rs. 45 lakhs as claimed by him. The CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 33 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:57:00 +0530 accused person chose not to enter into the witness box and depose on the genuineness of the trail of documents brought by the complainant. The complainant chose to remain silent on the trail of documents in his defence under Section 251 of CrPC as well as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. The accused person has nowhere stated about the fact that his signatures were taken on a blank piece of paper under inducement. The accused person has not even stated anything about the alleged payment made to the brother of the complainant. In the present scenario, the accused person has miserably failed to rebut any document brought by the complainant.
27. Moreover, the accused person has not given any explanation regarding Ex. CW1/5 for Rs. 1,13,30,000/-, Ex. CW1/7 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, Ex. CW1/9 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, Ex. CW1/13 for Rs. 1,12,00,000/-, Ex. CW1/14 for Rs. 1,14,00,000/- and Ex. CW1/15 for Rs. 1,18,00,000/-, these cheques are not in question but have been put on record by the complainant to substantiate his claim. The above cheques are from the account of the accused person and the amount on the above cheques matches the facts narrated by the complainants in their complaint and the evidence by way of affidavit of complainant number 1. The accused person has not given any explanation as to why the above cheques were given to the complainant. This further makes it clear that the version of the complainant is genuine as against the multiple stories concocted by the accused person to avoid his liability.
CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 34 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15
16:57:05 +0530
28. The contradictions and inconsistencies raised by the accused alone in absence of any other evidence or supporting material is not sufficient to put any dent in the testimony of the complainant. In that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rohitbhai J. Patel v. The State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal no. 508/2019 held as follows:
"Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. The other observations as regards any variance in the statement of complainant and witness; or want of knowledge about dates and other particulars of the cheques; or washing away of the earlier cheques in the rains though the office of the complainant being on the 8th floor had also been of irrelevant factors for consideration of a probable defence of the appellant it is noticed that the Trial Court proceeded on a misplaced assumption that by mere denial or mere creation of doubt, the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption as envisaged by CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 35 of 37 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:57:09 +0530 Section 139 of the NI Act. In the scheme of NI Act, mere creation of doubts is not sufficient."
29. The version of the complainants has remained consistent throughout. The complainant number 1 has stated in the complaint, evidence by way of affidavit and his cross examination, that the accused had taken a loan from them as per the Loan Agreement dated 03.09.2020. Further the Accused had time and again sought extension for repayment thereof through his numerous letters and undertakings and lastly on 30.01.2022 had issued the cheque in question towards discharge of his entire liability of Rs.1,40,00,000/- but upon presentation the same got dishonored and despite receipt of legal notice the accused failed to repay the said amount. The burden was on the accused to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality, and show that there existed no legally enforceable debt against him. Only in a case where the accused person comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted. In this case, the accused has completely failed to rebut the presumption which arises from the issuance of cheque, wherein the issuance of cheque is admitted by both the parties.
Conclusion:
30. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the accused has failed to shake the case of the complainant and highlight infirmities in his case so as to rebut the CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 36 of 37 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.15 16:57:14 +0530 presumptions raised in the favour of the complainant u/s 139 read with Section 118, NI Act. Furthermore, cross-examination of the complainant by the accused also did not shake the veracity of the complainant's testimony and the documents on record. Thus, the presumptions in favour of the complainant have not been rebutted by the accused. In light of this, accused Mr. Alok Gupta, is convicted for the offence U/S 138, N.I. Act.
Judgment pronounced in the open court on 15.02.2025.
This judgment consists of 37 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.
Copy of the judgment given free of cost to the accused person.Digitally signed
SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:57:20 +0530 (Shivam Gupta) Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-02 PHC, New Delhi 15.02.2025 CC No. 5582 of 2022 Ramneek Bawa & Anr. Vs. Alok Gupta Page 37 of 37 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.15 16:57:31 +0530