Delhi District Court
Balaji Organics vs Mine Chemicals Pvt Ltd on 6 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TANMAY BATHAM,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT - 03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI
JUDGMENT
Complaint Case No. 6848/2019
Title of the case M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine
Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Name of the Complainant M/s Balaji Organics through its
Proprietor Mr. Ajay Dalmia
Name of the Accused M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. through
its MD Mr. Om Parkash Kukreja
Date of Institution 02.09.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment 27.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2026
Offence complained of Under Section 138 NI Act
Offence charged with Under Section 138 NI Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Argued by: Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Krishan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Accused.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant M/s Balaji Organics through its Proprietor Mr. Ajay Dalmia (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") against the accused M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. through its MD Mr. Om Parkash Kukreja (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") under Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.06
18:25:05
+0530
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). The substance of allegations of the complainant is that the complainant is a major supplier of solvents and chemicals used in manufacturing of various products. That the accused, claiming to be exporter and supplier of water proofing chemicals, through its Director, expressed its desire to purchase the chemicals for its business and the complainant agreed to supply the chemicals, as and when demanded by it. That the complainant used other raise invoices of the goods being supplied to the accused and that after some time, the complainant realised that the accused was not regular in clearing its outstanding dues. That upon repeated requests of the complainant to the accused to settle the accounts, the accused issued the following four cheques towards discharge of its part liability (hereinafter referred to as the "cheques in question") bearing the following particulars:
1. Cheque bearing no. 0001265 dated 25.03.2019, for an amount of Rs. 1,86,273/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, East of Kailash Branch, Delhi.
2. Cheque bearing no. 0001266 dated 25.03.2019, for an amount of Rs. 1,86,273/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, East of Kailash Branch, Delhi.
3. Cheque bearing no. 0001267 dated 25.03.2019, for an amount of Rs. 1,86,273/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, East of Kailash Branch, Delhi.
4. Cheque bearing no. 0001268 dated 25.03.2019, for an amount of Rs. 2,28,720/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, East of Kailash Branch, Delhi.
That, the complainant presented the cheques in question and they got dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque return memos dated 26.03.2019. That, upon asking, the accused admitted that he had to make some other payments and that is why the funds fell short. That, upon assurance Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:24:55 +0530 of accused the cheques in question were again presented after the mid of April, 2019 and in May 2019, but every time the cheques in question received the same fate as before. Lastly, that on the instructions of the accused, the complainant again presented the cheques in question on 19.06.2019 but they were again dishonoured on account of the reason "Funds Insufficient", which was informed to the complainant vide cheque return memos dated 19.06.2019. That, a total of amount of Rs. 12,37,654.20/- is due on the accused. That the accused, despite multiple demands, did not make the payment. That the complainant then issued legal demand notice dated 20.07.2019 to pay a sum of Rs. 7,87,539/- , through his counsel upon the accused, which was sent through speed post and courier and that despite the passage of stipulated time period, the accused did not honour his legal liability.
NOTICE U/S 251 CRPC
2. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was summoned to face trial and upon his appearance, a notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") was served on him on 11.05.2022. In reply to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, but denied filing it up. He also denied receiving the legal demand notice. It was stated by him that the cheques in question were issued for the purpose of security during their business. He alleged that the complainant has supplied him less quantity and that he has fabricated false bills to misuse the cheques in question.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, an application under Section 145 (2) Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") was moved by the accused Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 3 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.06
18:24:47
+0530
seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant and the same was allowed. During the trial, in the Complainant's Evidence (hereinafter referred to as "CE"), the complainant has led both oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant himself stepped in the witness box as CW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied on documents exhibited as Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/17. Complainant was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and all the exculpatory suggestions put to complainant were duly denied by him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
4. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused stated that he has already paid the entire amount of the complainant and that his blank signed security cheques have been misused. He again denied receiving any legal demand notice however, admitted the address therein to be his correct address. The accused alleged that the complainant has filed certain fabricated bills.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
5. Thereafter, the accused led his defence evidence whereby, he led oral evidence of himself as DW-1. All the incriminating suggestions put to the accused were duly denied by him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
6. The final arguments were heard in the matter and I have heard the ld. counsels appearing for the parties and I have given my thoughtful Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:24:37 +0530 consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. Following arguments have been advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant:
a) That all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. That the admission of the accused regarding his signatures, when seen in light of Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act, shifts the onus upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not given in discharge of any liability; and that the accused has not been able to raise any probable defence regarding the same.
b) That the accused has admitted issuing Form C to the complainant, which further proves that the complainant has fulfilled his side of promise in the business.
8. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued on the following grounds:
a) That the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the complainant has issued the legal demand notice beyond the limitation period.
b) That the present case has been filed a Proprietor and as such it is bad in law. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dogiparthi Venkat Satish v. Pilla Durga Prasad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1825).
c) That the complainant has not supplied the goods stated in the annexed bill and that the bills have been fabricated. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted.
Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:24:28 +0530 INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
9. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to examine the legal requirements that both parties must meet before delving into the peculiar facts of the present case. The complainant must satisfy the following five essential components to make out the offence under section 138 NI Act: -
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
10. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if all of the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
First and Third Ingredient
11. The proof of first and third ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheques, Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/4 which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:24:19 +0530 that the cheques in question were presented within the validity period. The cheque in question were returned unpaid and the return memos and Bank Statements indicating the same are exhibited from Ex. CW1/5 and Ex. CW1/6 (Colly.) due to the same reason i.e., "Funds Insufficient". The Bank Statement has been proved, by the bank witness and the same is also exhibited as Ex. 2/A (Colly.), whereby the reason for dishonour is stated visibly. As such, on the basis of the above, the first and third ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
Fourth And Fifth Ingredient
12. With regard to the fourth ingredient, the complainant has proved on record the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/9 and effective delivery of same through postal receipts Ex. CW1/10 to Ex. CW1/13 and Tracking Reports Ex. CW1/14 to Ex. CW1/17. The accused has denied receipt of legal demand notice, however, in his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C., his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and in his Defence Evidence, he has provided the same address as that mentioned on the legal demand notice. Hence, it could be concluded that the legal demand notice was sent on the correct address of the accused.
13. It is a settled position that, once it has been established that the legal demand notice by the complainant was sent on the last known address of the accused, a presumption in the light of the Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act will come into play and it could be reasonably presumed that the legal demand notice was served on the accused. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 7 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:24:10 +0530 post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under section. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under section 138 , by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
The ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the legal demand notice was never served on the accused as the company was closed at that time. However, the accused has had an opportunity to speak before the court in his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C., his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and his examination-in-chief, but, he has never raised this point himself that the company was closed down. Therefore, the argument that the accused did not receive the legal demand notice will not hold much strength in the light of the admission of the accused regarding his address. Further, it is to be noted that the accused has not brought any evidence on record to show that the legal demand notice was, in fact, not served on him. Hence, the presumption raised regarding the service of legal demand notice will stand un-rebutted. Accordingly, the argument of accused that he did not receive the legal demand notice is rejected.
14. Additionally, the ld. counsel for the accused has also argued that the legal demand notice to the accused was not sent within the statutory Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:24:01 +0530 limitation period i.e., within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank. He further argues that paragraph no. 4 of the complaint and paragraph no. 4 of the legal demand notice state that information regarding the dishonour of cheques was received by the complainant vide cheque return memos dated 19.06.2019 and that the legal demand notice dated 20.07.2019 was sent through post on 20.07.2019 only. He argues that the date of dispatch of the legal demand notice is beyond the statutory limitation period of 30 days and hence, the essentials of the provision of Sec. 138 of the NI Act are not fully met.
15. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the discrepancy regarding the date of return memos is only a typographical error and as such, it should not be allowed shadow the merits of his case. He submits that the cheques in question were dishonoured not on 19.06.2019, but on 20.06.2019 only and the intimation regarding the fact of dishonour of cheques was also received by the complainant on or after that only. He further clarifies that since the information was received only on or after 20.06.2019, the legal demand notice dated 20.07.2019 was dispatched well within the limitation period of 30 days, i.e., on 20.07.2019. To substantiate the same, the complainant has led the evidence of CW-2, Senior Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank (Complainant's Bank) who has brought his statement of accounts for the relevant period, exhibited as Ex. 2/A (Colly.). The said statement of accounts show the date of dishonour of the cheques in question as 20.06.2019 alongwith the reason for dishonour i.e., Funds Insufficient. A corollary flows from it that the information regarding the dishonour of the cheques in question could not have been received by the complainant before 20.06.2019. Hence, it stands clarified that the mention of date of return memos as 19.06.2019 is only a typographical error on the part of the complainant and Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:23:53 +0530 the intimation was best received by the complainant on 20.06.2019 or later. In any case, the legal demand notice dispatched on 20.07.2019 was sent within the limitation period of 30 days. The merits of the case cannot be left hanging on the first sight of typographical error in the complaint. The defence of the accused must arise from a reasonable explanation of his innocence and not from the typographical error on the part of the complainant. Rather pertinently, the error in the compliant and the legal demand notice is only about the date of dishonour of the cheques in question and not about the particulars of the cheques in question itself. The accused had an ample notice of the particulars of the cheques in question, so as to allow him to take future recourse and it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to him by this typographical error. The said error in the complaint, anyway, has been clarified duly by the complainant in the final arguments. Therefore, the fourth ingredient of the offence also stands proved. The argument of the ld. counsel for the accused that the legal demand notice was sent beyond the limitation period is rejected. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed. Therefore, the fifth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
Second Ingredient
16. Now, it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved or not. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the signature of the accused on the cheque in question is not denied. In the plea of defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted being a signatory to the cheques in question. Under the NI Act, once the accused admits his signatures on the cheque, certain presumptions are Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.06 18:23:43 +0530 drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. The second presumption is contained under Section 139 of NI Act which casts a reverse onus upon the accused. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
17. It has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise 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 Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 11 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:25:34 +0530 box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
In view of the above principles, a reverse onus is cast on the accused who has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. The arguments raised by the accused have been considered in totality and have been contrasted with his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C., his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the evidence brought on record by both the parties. The contentions raised by the accused are being discussed below.
CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION (A) That the bills of supply has been fabricated by the complainant:
18. It is the case of the accused that the complainant has not supplied to him the quantity of goods as shown in the bills exhibited as Ex. CW1/7 (Colly.) and has misused his security cheques. However, the perusal of the evidence appearing on record does not concretely establishes the stand being taken by the accused. It has been argued by the ld. counsel for the accused during final arguments that the accused was being supplied with lesser quantity;
even the accused in his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C. has stated that the complainant has supplied him with lesser quantity. However, at the stage of evidence, the ld. counsel for the accused has changed his stance and has put a suggestion to the complainant that the factory of the accused was closed in the year 2019. This variation in the defence of the accused has to be seen in contrast of the fact that even the accused himself has not stated that his factory was closed in his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C. The omission of accused to state this important fact and then a sudden mention of the same by the ld. counsel for the accused raises doubts on the consistency of the defence being Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 12 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:23:34 +0530 taken by accused. Notably, the fact regarding closing of the factory was not taken up again anywhere further in the trial, not even in the examination-in- chief of the accused, which weakens the credibility of the version of the accused.
19. It cannot be missed that even the alternate claim of the accused i.e., regarding supply of lesser quantity of goods, has not been substantiated with any evidence or explanation. The accused had stated in his cross-
examination that he maintains a ledger of his own, but the same has not been brought on record to show what quantity was, in fact, received by him as per his own records. The complainant has adduced the bills Ex. CW1/7 (Colly.) with the claim that the accused has claimed Input Tax Credit on the goods supplied to him by the accused and the accused has admitted claiming the Input Tax Credit in his cross-examination dated 20.09.2025. However, he was quick to go back and say that his Accountant would know about that. The accused has not brought his Accountant in support of his case later, making the defence of the accused hanging in the middle of his claims without any substantiation or explanation. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the supply of goods is further substantiated by the issuance of C-Form by the accused. However, the accused has not properly addressed the claim of the complainant that C-Form was issued by the accused after receipt of the goods.
20. The accused had stated in his cross-examination that all the due payments have been made by him though cheques, however, he has shied away from presenting his detailed records of payments and ledgers. The accused has not put forth any explanation regarding steps taken by him to get his security cheques back from the complainant after their business transactions ended. This further makes the version of the complainant more believable that the cheques in question have been issued in discharge of a liability. In the absence of any Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 13 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.06
18:23:22
+0530
documents or testimony forthcoming, the defence of the accused has not been able to find firm grounds. The deficiency in the defence of the accused makes it fall short of the threshold of a probable defence. The ld. counsel for the accused argues that since the Bills have not been signed by the accused, they cannot be said to be valid and true. However, the mere absence of the signatures of the accused on the Bills, in the light of other deficiencies in the defence of the accused, will not prove that the same have been fabricated. Hence, the arguments of the ld. counsel for the accused that the Bills have been fabricated is hereby rejected, for want of proper explanation and substantiation.
(B) That a Complainant being a Proprietorship cannot sue another, as it is not a legal entity:
21. The ld. counsel for the accused has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dogiparthi Venkat Satish v. Pilla Durga Prasad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1825) and has argued that since the complaint has been filed on behalf of the proprietorship concern, it does not have any legal identity of its own to claim the legally recoverable debts of the proprietor. The ld. counsel for the complainant has counter-argued that the judgment relied upon by the ld. counsel for the accused pertains to the jurisprudence of civil law where liabilities are decided based on civil rights, and that, as such, the same cannot applied on the criminal trials, where penal consequences ensue for the acts of the person. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complaint as well as the evidence by way of affidavit, has been filed in the name of the Proprietorship, through the Proprietor and that even the cheques in question have been issued in the name of the proprietorship concern itself.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of M/S. Shankar Finance & Investments vs State Of A.P. (2008) 8 SCC 536, has settled Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 14 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:23:11 +0530 that where the "payee" is a proprietary concern the complaint can be filed by the proprietor of the proprietary concern describing himself as the sole proprietor of the "payee"; or the proprietary concern describing itself as the sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor;
23. The present complaint has been filed by the proprietorship M/s Balaji Organics, through its proprietor Mr. Ajay Dalmia. The evidence affidavit has been filed by the complainant wherein the proprietor Mr. Ajay Dalmia has affirmed on oath that he is the proprietor of the accused concern. Hence, the complainant has fulfilled the legal requirements needed for filing the complaint as a proprietorship concern and accordingly, the argument of the ld. counsel for the accused regarding the complaint not being maintainable is rejected.
24. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion is that the accused has failed to prove that there was no legally enforceable liability of amounts mentioned in the cheques in question. Therefore, the second ingredient is also proved in the present case.
CONCLUSION
25. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in establishing his case. The signature on the cheques are admitted by the accused and the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act is raised against the accused. The accused has failed to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence. The defence of the accused that complainant misused his blank signed cheques is liable to be rejected in view of glaring contradictions and deficiencies in the defence of the accused. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant Mr. Ajay Dalmia, Proprietor, M/s Balaji Organics is allowed and the accused Mr. Om Parkash Kukreja, MD, M/s Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 15 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.06 18:22:55 +0530 Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is hereby convicted of the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
26. Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed ORDER: CONVICTION by TANMAY
BATHAM
TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.06
18:22:41
+0530
Announced in the open court (TANMAY BATHAM)
on 06.03.2026. JMFC (NI ACT-03)
THC (West), Delhi
Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signature.
Ct. Case No. 6848/2019 M/s Balaji Organics v. M/s Mine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 16 of 16