Delhi District Court
The Jyoti Raw Phoole Cooperative Urban ... vs Shri Surender on 27 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SNEHIL SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NI ACT DIGITAL COURT, NORTH EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOMA COURT, DELHI
JUDGMENT
THE JYOTI RAW PHOOLEY COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY LTD.
VS
SURENDER
CC NO: 235/2022 P. S. Gokal Puri
U/s 138 NI Act
a CNR No. of the case : DLNE020006272022
b Date of institution of the case : 14.03.2022
c Cheque number and dated : 470637 dt. 26.12.2021
d Cheque amount : Rs. 1,89,654/-
e Name of the complainant : The Jyoti Raw Phooley Co-op.
Urban thrift & Credit Society Ltd.
Through
Office at: F-144/ gali no.2,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi 1100094
f Name of the accused and his : Surender
s/o Sh. Nageena
parentage
R/o H.No.A-8/552,
East Gokal Puri,
Loni Road, Delhi-110094
g Offence complained of : 138 NI Act
h Plea of accused : Not guilty
i Orders reserved on : 07.02.2024
j Final order : Accused Surender is acquitted
for offences punishable under
sections 138 NI Act.
k Date of judgment : 27.05.2024
CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 1 of 16
Digitally signed by
SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27
16:54:42 +0530
1. Vide this judgment the present complaint case for an offence punishable U/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the NI Act") is being decided.
2. It is case of the complainant that the complainant is society which is duly regd. with Govt. Delhi under the registration of Soceity Act, 1972 and is engaged in the business of thrift, credit and extending loan to its registered members. Present complaint is being filed through its authorised representative Mr. Vinod Chaudhary. The accused is registered member of the complainant society vide his membership no. 003067. The accused had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.11.2020 against his membership account and repayment of monthly installments with interest. The accused failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and did not make payment regularly of his loan amount. In discharge of his liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing no. 470637, dt. 26.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,89,654/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi in favour of complainant assuring clearance of the same.
3. On the assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the abovesaid cheque for encashment with his bank i.e. State Bank of India, Gokal Puri, Delhi but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with remarks "Old OBC CHQ" vide return memo dated 29.12.2021.
4. The complainant had sent a legal notice dated 12.01.2022 to the accused through his counsel regarding the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque through registered AD & speed post but the accused has neither discharged his liability nor make payment of the cheque amount and CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 2 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:54:48 +0530 therefore, the present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. On being satisfied of the prima facie ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 14.03.2022.
6. Accordingly, on 10.05.2022 notice under Section 251 Cr.PC r/w Section 263(g) Cr.P.C was framed and served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While putting forth his plea of defence, accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, however denied the other particulars of the cheque being filled by him. Accused has admitted his address to be correct but denied having received the legal demand notice. He has further stated that he had taken the loan from the complainant of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2019 and had repaid around 10-12 installments in cash. Around Rs.1,79,000/- was left to be paid. His bank i.e. OBC in which he was maintaining the account and of which the cheque in question belongs to, got merged in PNB around 6-7 months ago. The cheque in question had been given by him to the complainant at the time of availing the loan as security.He does not owe the liability of cheque amount towards the complainant.
7. In Complainant's evidence, the complainant (CW-1) tendered his evidence affidavit in post summoning evidence and relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. CW1/A :Evidence of complainant by
way of affidavit.
ii) Ex. CW1/1 : Copy of Resolution
iii) Ex. CW1/2 : Authority letter
iv) Ex. CW1/3 : Original Cheque
CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 3 of 16
Digitally signed
SNEHIL by SNEHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27
16:54:59 +0530
(Admitted U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.)
v) Ex. CW1/4 : Cheque returning memo
(Admitted U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.)
vi) Ex. CW1/5 : Legal notice
(Admitted U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.)
vii) Ex. CW1/6 : Postal receipts
viii) Ex. CW1/7 : Tracking report
ix) Ex. CW1/8-10 : Loan application, Bond &
vouncher
x) Ex. CW1/11 : Account statement
xi) Ex. CW1/12 :Copy of reply to Legal
notice
8. CW1 was cross examined on behalf of the accused. During cross examination, CW1 has stated that he deos not know the accused personally. He has voluntarily stated that he know the accused through society. The loan in question had to be repaid in 50 installments of Rs.6,200/- per month including the interest maount. As per their records, accused had repaid the amount of Rs.33,654/- against the principle loan amount. They had issued the receipts to accused whenever he made the payment. The receipts are not placed on record but the loan account statement is filed as Ex. CW1/11. No record has been filed with respect to the reminders sent to the accused for making the payment when he defaulted in payment of the loan in question. He had filled the details of the cheque in question. He has voluntarily stated that accused had signed the cheque. Accused had given the cheque in question on 25.12.2021. CW1 had denied all the suggestions put to him during cross examination.
9. Complainant has also examined bank witness Harsh Kumar as CW2. He had brought the statement of account holder namely Surender from 01.11.2021 to 31.03.2022. Statement of account is Ex. CW2/A. CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 4 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:04 +0530
10. CW2 was cross examined on behalf of the accused. CW2 has admitted that the drawer bank Oriental Bank of Commerce was merged into Punjab National Bank on 01.04.2021. He has also admitted that the cheque book of Oriental Bank of Commerce has become invalid after 01.04.2021. CW2 has deposed that when the bank is merged with another bank and cheque got invalid, then the invalid cheque does not come under bounce cheque. He voluntarily stated that the bank does not accept the invalid cheque. CW2 has admitted that the cheque in question was presented by the complainant on 29.12.2021 after merge of Oriental Bank of Commerce into Punjab National Bank.
11. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and accused has admitted having taken loan from the complainant. Accused has stated that he had given three blank signed cheques to the complainant in lieu of the loan taken by him of around Rs.2 lacs and around Rs.2.5 lacs repaid by him to the complainant but the complainant had not returned the cheques to him. The complainant did not tell him that they are going to present the cheque before the bank, if complainant had informed him in advance then he would have given them the fresh cheque. He had denied having received the legal demand notice. He had admitted his signatures on the cheque but denied other details being filled by him in the cheque. He has further stated that he had paid Rs. 2.5 lacs to the complainant and no amount is due upon him and the complainant had unnecessarily raised the account book and shown the balance against him. As per the calculation no due is left. He went to the office of the complainant to ask that why they have filed the false case against him but they are even not ready to talk. Complainant has misused his cheque. He has opted to lead DE.
CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 5 of 16
Digitally signed
SNEHIL by SNEHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27
16:55:08 +0530
12. Accused has examined himself as DW1. DW1 has deposed that he had taken a loan of Rs. 2 lakh from the society. He was regularly paying the installments. Due to financial crisis, some installments were elapsed. His friend informed him that complainant society was going to file a case against him. Thereafter, he arranged the money, by borrowing from others and gave the amount of Rs 1.5 lacs to the AR of the complainant society. After few days, he came to know that the complainant society presented the cheque in question which got bounced. He got to know about the fact of cheque bounce through message sent by his bank. He did not receive any notice regarding the fact of cheque bounce of the cheque in question. Thereafter, the complainant society filed the case against him.
13. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the complainant. DW1 has admitted that the address mentioned in complaint and legal notice dated 12.01.2022 Ex CW1/5 is of himself. After seeing Ex CW1/8 and Ex CW1/9, DW1 has admitted that the particulars filled in the document Ex CW1/8 were filled and signed by him. He has admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs 2 lacs from the complainant society on interest. He has also admitted that the rate of interest of 13.2% and penal interest of 1 paisa/Rupee/month on all over dues installments from the date of default is mentioned in the document Ex CW1/9. He has also admitted that the document Ex CW1/9 bears his signature. He has voluntarily stated that he was not aware about the rate of interest, he is aware only about the 1% rate of interest(4 years) and the document Ex CW1/9 was not filled in front of him. He has admitted that he reside with his family from 2020 till now at the above mentioned address. He work at MCD office. He has admitted that the cheque in question Ex CW1/3 was issued by him in favour of the complainant society. He has admitted that he had received a message from his bank regarding the cheque bounce bearing cheque no. 470637 dated CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 6 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:13 +0530 29.12.2021. The friend who informed him about the fact that complainant society would file the case against him was Joginder. Joginder do not work in the society. He has voluntarily stated that he went to deposit the money in the society. He has admitted that he had insufficient balance in his account at the time of presenting and bouncing of the said cheque in question. He did not receive legal notice dated 12.01.2022 from the complainant society. He know the Pravesh Kumar (advocate) who has office at Seat no. 30, Ground floor, E Block Karkardooma, Delhi . He identified the signature of his Counsel on the document i.e reply of legal notice 14.01.2022. The reply of said legal notice was sent by his counsel on his instruction. He has further admited that same advocate is contested the matter and also given the reply of the legal notice dt. 12.01.2022. He had voluntarily stated that he had repaid many amount which is not deducted and adjusted by the complainant. He has admitted that he does not have receipts of repayment. He has voluntarily stated that AR received the money in cash and did not give received to him. He had denied the suggestions put to him during cross examination.
14. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that case of the complainant is proved and cheque is also in the favour of the complainant, therefore, accused must be convicted and amount should be recovered. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that complainant has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
15. I have heard ld counsel for the complainant and Ld. Defence counsel for accused & considered the respective arguments as well as gone through case file very carefully.
CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 7 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:18 +0530
16. The essential ingredients in order to attract Sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881 are as following:
i) The cheque for an amount is issued by the drawer to the payee/complainant on a bank account being maintained by him.
ii) The said cheque is issued for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or liability.
iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid on account of insufficient amount to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
iv) The cheque is presented within 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.
v) within 30 days a legal demand notice is issued by the payee or the holder in due course to the drawer of the cheque on receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque.
vi) The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of the money as demanded in the legal demand notice to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the reciept of said notice.
vii) The debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is legally enforceable.
17. Before discussing the facts, undersigned deems it necessary to discuss certain legal propositions i.e. it is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the case is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 8 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:31 +0530 the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
18. In this case, perusal of record shows that the reason for dishonour of cheque is old OBC cheque and not the funds insufficient etc. Therefore, the main issue which has arisen for consideration before this Court is whether a cheque which is dishonored for the reason 'old cheque' is a valid instrument and is sufficient to attract the provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after referred to as 'the NI Act'). Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused has deliberately issued old cheques to the complainant knowing that it shall not be honored upon presentation and hence the accused should not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong.
19. As per the undersigned, the provision as contained in section 138 of the NI Act makes it clear that it is not every return of a cheque return unpaid which leads to prosecution of an offence under the said provision of law. For such purposes, the cheque must have been returned 'unpaid' either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank. In the instant case, the impugned cheque has been returned dishonored on the ground that it is an 'old OBC cheque'. Perusal of record shows that the complainant has called the bank witness to prove that not only the cheque was returned being old but also on the date of the cheque the accused was not having sufficient balance in his account or cheque got dishonoured due to the other reasons like "exceed the arrangement" or "signature differ" or "account closed" etc but even after examining the CW2, complainant could not discharge his burden as despite the account statement being furnished CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 9 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:38 +0530 by CW2, the bank witness stands firm on the statement that the bank does not accept invalid cheque after 01.04.2021 and the cheque in question was invalid cheque and not come under bounced cheque. Also, date on the cheque is beyond the said date and also the account statements shows that there are continued transactions in the account of the accused and that too through other cheques. Therefore, the accused has successfully raised the doubt that the cheque in question was the security cheque misused by the complainant.
20. It is very much clear from the provisions of NI Act that the cheque must be dishonored for the reasons, the fault of which can be attributed to the accused and not for any other reason or change in law or rules and regulations of the RBI. Support is drawn from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as M/s. Ceasefire Industries Ltd. Vs. State & Ors CRL.L.P. 51/2017 decided on 1st May, 2017. As per the RBI, the cheques in question were seized to be legal tender and that is why the concerned bank returned the same with the remark of "old OBC cheque". From the facts of the case and the documents on record, it is clear that the dishonor of impugned cheque in the present case is beyond the control of the accused and accordingly it would be unjust and unfair and against the very intent and purpose of the legislature to compel the accused to face trial.
21. Further, the contention that the accused deliberately issued the impugned cheque knowing that the same shall not be honored upon presentation also does not hold water in the eyes of law. Because offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is a technical offence and if the cheques itself are not a valid instrument and the reason for dishonor is not covered under the said section, then without prejudice to the other remedies that the CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 10 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:45 +0530 complainant may have against the accused under the Indian Penal Code or Civil or Recovery or other laws for the time being in force, no offence of dishonor of the cheques can be made out against the drawer under the NI Act. This old cheque being seized legal tender is not less than demonitisation of the old cheque and therefore does not have any value after the expiry of seizing date. In this case, a cheque which has been returned due to being old OBC cheque is nothing less than a printed paper which does not have any value for the bank and has been declared invalid by RBI being old cheque. Complainant cannot take the plea that he was unaware about the said ruling while accepting the cheque as the ignorance of law is no excuse. Therefore, it cannot be said that essential ingredients
(iii) stand proved by the complainant.
22. In this regard, it is important to draw attention on the judgment of Md. Nasim Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand Crl. Revsion No. 685 of 2012, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has dealt with the question whether bouncing of cheques on the ground that the same were not acceptable to the bank on account of its being non MICR called for prosecution u/s 138 of N.I.Act and has observed as under:
"15.The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has totally ignored the reason for second bouncing of cheques pursuant to Bank memo cover letter dated 10.07.2007 which was marked as exhibit-5 i.e on account of its being non-MICR and not acceptable to the bank, which indicated that the cheques had bounced not because of insufficiency of funds but because of the fact that the cheques themselves had lost their validity/acceptability by the bank"
"17. Admittedly the second bouncing of cheques was not on account of any insufficiency of fund in the bank, nor the same was on account of any act of stop payment etc. from the side of the petitioner. Thus, by the time the second presentation of cheques was made in the bank, the same had become not acceptable by the bank on account of being non-MICR cheques. Accordingly, the petitioner had no role to play in return of cheques upon second presentation, but the same were not acceptable by the bank itself on account of technical reasons. As per proviso (a) of CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 11 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:51 +0530 section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the cheque has to be presented within six months from the date it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. This Court is of the considered view that bouncing of cheques upon second presentation on account of them being not acceptable by the bank (on account of being non-MICR cheque) was not on account of any act or omission of the petitioner. Accordingly, the said bouncing of cheques on second presentation cannot be a ground for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as one of the conditions precedent for prosecution i.e the cheque itself should be valid on the date of its presentation, is not satisfied when the cheques are returned as not acceptable to the bank on account of being non-MICR cheques."
23. Further contradictions are found in the case of the complainant where in the evidence affidavit, the complainant has deposed that the accused has taken the loan in question which has to be repaid in 50 installments of Rs.6200/- per month. However, as per Ex.CW1/11 the statement of loan account reflects the installments as of worth Rs.4,000/-. This inconsistency has not been explained by the complainant in their evidence. Further perusal of the record reveals that there has been a correction in Ex.CW1/8 in the column of installment amount. This also has not been explained by the complainant.
24. Further, the complainant has deposed that the accused is a constant defaulter and they have sent multiple reminders to the accused requesting him to pay the installment amounts. However, the complainant has not furnished any evidence to show as to what installments has been skipped by the accused and nothing is presented on record to corroborate the statement of repeated requests and reminders by the complainant.
25. In addition to this, Ex. CW1/9 reveals that the loan was taken on dt. 09.11.2020 in the installments to be paid in 50 months i.e. approximately four years. However, the cheque in question is dt. 26.12.2021. The court fails to understand that a loan taken for the time period of four years in CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 12 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:55:55 +0530 which various installments have already been paid, has been allegedly paid by the accused in full within a period of 12 months by this cheque. If the accused was having money to return the same before the due period then also complainant has not shown that how and on what term he agreed to forclose the loan in lesser time.
26. The reply to the legal notice dt. 12.01.2022 provides that the accused has already given Rs.65,794/- to the complainant before June 2021 and has also paid Rs.1,80,000/- in cash. Further, perusal of Ex. CW1/11 reveals that the total balance due on the dt. 25.12.2021 is Rs.1,89,793/-. However, the cheque in question is of amount Rs.1,89,654/-. The complainant has failed to provide any explanation on the inconsistency of this amount. Further, they have also failed to clarify on the total dues worth Rs. 41,793/- pending on 25.12.2021 mentioned in the Ex.CW1/11.
27. Complainant in evidence affidavit has also deposed that reminders were also sent through letter and telephonic messages but no such report was placed for perusal of the court. Moreover, complainant without discharging his burden, tried to rely on the defence evidence for the conviction purpose, which is not possible. In the absence of any credible evidence, it is impossible to ascertain that whether the liability as mentioned by the complainant is correct. Mere verbal submission of CW1 is not enough evidence in the eyes of law without supporting documents and without completing the necessary formalities under NI Act. The complainant has not challenged/rebutted reply of legal notice given by the accused. This makes story of complainant highly improbable. Thus, evidence of the complainant does not inspire confidence due to these severe contradictions.
CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 13 of 16
Digitally signed
SNEHIL by SNEHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27
16:56:02 +0530
28. On the aspects of preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non- existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. As per the facts and circumstances of this case accused has led cogent and believable evidence to support his defence.
29. 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. 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."
30. The primary burden upon the accused was to punch holes in the version of the complainant in order to rebut the presumptions and the standard of proof required from him was preponderance of probabilities; and the accused has been able to do the same by bringing out the CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 14 of 16 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27 16:56:10 +0530 inconsistencies and contradcitions in the version put forward by the complainant.
31. Hence, doubt is raised upon the story deposed by the complainant. The contradictions and omissions in the evidence of complainant could be removed by bringing witness or any audio/video recording or any documentary evidence or any chating or by showing the transfer from the bank or by disclosing the same in evidence etc. As per the above discussion, it can not be said that the cheque was drawn by him in favour of the complainant as the same was an old OBC cheque which has been deemed invalid since 01.04.2021. Therefore, the essential ingredient (iii) as discussed in the preceding paragraphs does not stand fulfilled.
32. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752) normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party;s case, material discrepancies do so. Here the above discussed discrepancies are material one and fatal to the case.
33. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the settled position of law in this regard, the ingredients mentioned at Para No. 16 of this judgment are not completely fulfilled. Some of the CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 15 of 16 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.05.27 16:56:15 +0530 ingredients are fulfilled which need not to be discussed in detail. These circumstances attract benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.
34. In my view, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability and has failed to prove his case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the accused Surender is, thus, stands acquitted for the said offence.
Digitally signed byAccused is set at liberty.
SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.27
16:56:21 +0530
Announced in Open Court (SNEHIL SHARMA)
today on 27.05.2024 MM (NI Act) Digital Court,
NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI
CC NO. 235/2022 JRP vs Surender page 16 of 16