Delhi District Court
Abhishek Khandelwal vs Rajeev Gupta on 28 October, 2025
THE COURT OF Ms. RAVISHA SIDANA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06, NI ACT, CENTRAL
DELHI
CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016
ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL
Partner of M/s Khanelwal Papers,
16/F-3, Gay House, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002 ........ Complainant
vs.
RAJEEV GUPTA
Proprietor and authorized signatory of
M/s Mansarover Packaging
176, Neb Sarai,
Saket, behind Shokeen Market,
Delhi-110068 ........ Accused
a) Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable
or proved Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)
b) Date of Filing 16.07.2015
c) Plea of Accused Not Guilty
d) Date of Reserving Order 16.09.2025
e) Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2025
f) Final Order Conviction
Argued by :-
Ld. counsel for the complainant Sh. Rohan Raj.
Ld. counsel for the accused Sh. Pramod Aggarwal.
Digitally signed
RAVISHA by RAVISHA
SIDANA
SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28
16:44:56 +0530
CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 1 OF 18
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this common judgement, three connected cases bearing CC no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 are being disposed of as they arise out of the same transaction.
1.1 Briefly, it is the case of the complainant that he is the partner of M/s Khandelwal Papers and runs the business of Craft Papers, Duplex Board, MG Posters under the name and style of M/s Khandelwal Papers at 16/F3, Gay House, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The accused had business dealings with the complainant and in view of the aforesaid, he purchased papers vide Tax Invoice no. 895, Book no.20, dated 18.03.2013 for Rs.2,57,516/- and Tax Invoice no. 971, Book no.23, dated 09.09.2013 for Rs.2,01,224/- on credit basis. The accused was liable to pay total outstanding amount of Rs.3,73,740/-, after the due receiving of goods by the accused, as per these invoices excluding interest @1.5 paisa per kilogram per day after the due date of payment, as per the bills and the printed clause of interest mentioned thereon.
2. In terms of aforesaid part payment of the goods supplied and in order to discharge his legal liability accused, handed over post dated cheques as tabulated in Table-A below be referred as the "cheques in question/ impugned cheques".
2.1 The accused assured to honour his promise and it was agreed if accused fails to honour his promise, the complainant shall be entitled to present the aforesaid cheques. After huge amount was given by the complainant, the accused made some payments and did not repay the remaining payments. With hope to get some repayments, the impugned cheques were presented by the Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28 16:45:05 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 2 OF 18 complainant but the impugned cheques were return unpaid. After no satisfactory response to several intimation and requests, the complainant sent a legal notice through speed post, which was duly served upon the accused but accused failed to repay the amount of dishonoured cheque within 15 days. The complainant has filed the present complaint upon dishonour of the impugned cheques u/s 138 of NI Act.
TABLE-A
Cheque no. Drawer bank Dated Amount
002473 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002477 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002476 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002519 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002478 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002485 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002481 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002488 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.32,516/-
002486 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
057573 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 30.03.2015 Rs.15,000/-
002480 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002479 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002483 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002482 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
002484 Corporation Bank, Neb Sarai Branch, Delhi. 19.05.2015 Rs.25,000/-
3. Vide order dated 28.09.2015, after being satisfied that prima facie ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are made out, the cognizance was taken and Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28 16:45:11 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 3 OF 18 summons were directed to be issued against the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused and the accused entered into appearance on 17.12.2015.
4. During his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC, the accused denied the receipt of legal demand notice and raised the plea of defence as follows:
" I have filled-in all the particulars except date. I had issued the cheques in question to the complainant for supply of material by them. However, the material supplied was defective, the same was informed to the complainant as well as in a series of meetings. However, the complainant proceeded to present the cheques. The account has been closed two years ago".
5. The matter was then listed for Complainant Evidence. CW-1 (complainant) relied on his evidence by way of affidavit in post summoning evidence (CW-1/A) and relied on following documents:
Original cheque Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/5
Bank returning memo Ex.CW1/6 to Ex.CW1/10
Copy of legal notice Ex.CW1/11
Speed Post receipt Ex.CW1/12
Postal Tracking Report Ex.CW1/13
Invoice no. 895 alongwith delivery note Ex.CW1/14 and Ex.CW1/15.
Invoice no. 971 alongwith delivery note Ex.CW1/16 and Ex.CW1/17.
Ledger account of M/s Mansarovar Ex.CW1/18.
Packaging
6 The Complainant was examined and cross-examined as CW-1. Thereafter, the CE was closed.
7. During statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, after all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused, he admitted that the address mentioned on the Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28 16:45:18 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 4 OF 18 legal demand notice is correct and he is the signatory of the impugned cheques. He denied filling all the other particulars. He stated that he is unaware of any of the invoices, forming subject matter of the instant case. He wish to lead DE by stating that the impugned cheques were issued as security in the year 2010 when complainant visited his office and they entered into agreement to deal in papers wherein, the complainant used to supply paper and he used to make boxes out of them and re-sell. He stated to have discharge his liability when he received one bill of approximately Rs.2.48 lakhs and told the complainant that the material received was defective as he had already made the boxes and therefore, on quality cheque, he found out that the material was defective. Further, the defective material was lying in his custody and could have been scrapped. Lastly, the complainant had generated 3-4 bills and thereafter, misused the impugned cheques in question and presented the same.
8. During the Defence Evidence stage, the accused deposed as DW1, was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
ARGUMENTS
9. The DE was closed on 16.05.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments. The final arguments were heard. I have heard the ld. counsel appearing for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
10. It has been argued by the complainant that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case and further:
a) The accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question. No suggestions have been put to the complainant. Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28 16:45:22 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 5 OF 18
b) The Tax Invoices and the bills raised alongwith delivery note support the case of the complainant and corroborates the business transaction, in dispute, between the parties.
c) Further, it has been urged that the accused has taken different stands during different stages of the trial. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that it has been duly proved in this case and the accused persons have failed to produce any convincing evidence to the contrary.
As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
10.1. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt and submits that
a)the accused has no legally enforceable liability towards the complainant as no document has been filed on the record pertaining to the partnership firm of the complainant or any authority letter issued in his favour and therefore, the complainant was not authorised on behalf of the M/s Khandelwal Papers.
b) the ledger account in computerised form, placed on record by the complainant, is not supported with the certification under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'IEA') and therefore, cannot be relied upon.
As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted.
11. I have heard ld counsel for the complainant and Ld. Defence counsel for the accused & considered the respective arguments as well as gone through the case file very carefully.
Digitally signed by RAVISHARAVISHA SIDANA Date: SIDANA 2025.10.28 16:45:27 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 6 OF 18 INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION-
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both parties. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals that the following ingredients are to be proved before an offence is said to be committed:-
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.
13. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act when the above mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co- extensively. Additionally, the conditions provided under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
14. It is settled law that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Presumption under section 139 of NI act is raised in favour of the complainant. The presumption raised is a rebuttable presumption and the onus on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting, the presumption is Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28 16:45:31 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 7 OF 18 that of preponderance of probabilities. [Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (AIR 2019 SC 1983) See also Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513]
15. The phrase "unless the contrary is proved" u/s 139 is of vital importance clarifying that the rebuttal of the presumption has to be supported by proof and not mere plausible explanation. The liberty is granted to the accused to either rely on evidence led by him in his support or the material relied by the complainant to raise his probable defence. In addition to the materials brought on record, the circumstances relied upon can also draw the inference of preponderance of probability lying in the favour of the accused.
16. The proof of the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheques, Ex. CW1/1 - Ex. CW1/5 in each case, which the accused has not disputed as not being drawn from his account. It is not disputed that the cheques in question was presented within the respective validity period. The cheques in question was returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/6 - Ex. CW1/10 due to the reason "Account blocked", which falls within the purview of offence u/s 138 NI Act. A demand notice was sent to the address of the accused vide registered post and the same has been proved by legal notice Ex. CW1/11, postal receipts Ex. CW1/12 and tracking report Ex. CW1/13. The accused has disputed the receipt of legal notice in his initial defence while framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, admission of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC but not during his statement under Section 313 CrPC. In light of the legal principle that a person cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time, the accused cannot be allowed to take contrasting pleas during the same trial. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is not disputed. Therefore, the fourth and fifth ingredient does not require Digitally signed RAVISHA SIDANA by RAVISHA SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28 16:45:36 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 8 OF 18 adjudication independently. As such, on the basis of the above, the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
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
17. During the stage of notice framing and admission and denial of documents, and his statement recorded under 313 Cr.PC, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question that has been drawn in favour of the complainant. Hence, the presumption under 139 NI Act read with Section 118 NI Act is drawn in favour of the complainant.
17.1. The accused in the present case has relied on the following line of main defences to rebut the presumption:
A. The Blank signed cheques were issued to the complainant B. The impugned cheques were misused by the complainant 17.2 To analyse these defences in the right perspective, the following Issues need to be adjudicated:
i) Whether the accused issued blank signed cheques to the complainant
ii) Whether the impugned cheques are in discharge of his partial towards the supply of goods.
A. BLANK SIGNED CHEQUE AS SECURITY
18. The first defence taken by the accused is the cheques in question were misused by the complainant as the impugned cheques were issued for the orders Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28 16:45:40 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 9 OF 18 placed by the accused but the entire material was not supplied by the complainant and himself filled the particulars of the same before presenting it.
18.1 Section 20 of the NI Act talks about inchoate instruments. As per this provision if a person gives a duly signed cheque which is either blank or partly filled then he is deemed to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particular in it and complete the cheque, thus making the drawer liable for the payment mentioned in it. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision of section 138 would be attracted.
18.2 On this point, it is profitable to mention the judgment of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1174, wherein it has been held that merely because a cheque has been issued for only security purposes will not absolve the accused from the liability u/s. 138 NI Act. It has been further held that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the accused would very much be liable u/s. 138 NI Act for issuance of a security cheque also, if on the date of the presentation of such cheque, there has not been a prior discharge of debt, or if the cheque has not been given towards advance payment, the goods in respect of which have not been received by the other party, or if other than this there has been change in circumstances which precludes the complainant from depositing the cheque with the bank. Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28 16:45:50 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 10 OF 18 18.3. It is the specific version of the complainant that the cheques in question were issued by the accused for the discharge of his part liability to pay for goods supplied. In Ergo, the stance of the accused during his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC and recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC is that the impugned blank signed cheques were misused by the complainant as the entire goods were not supplied by the complainant .
19. As discussed, even in case of blank signed cheques, the statutory presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 would be raised in favour of the complainant. Since, the accused has admitted the execution of impugned cheque, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
B. IMPUGNED CHEQUES WERE IN PART DISCHARGE OF GOODS SUPPLIED
20. In the Complaint and PSE affidavit Ex.CW1/A, the complainant alleged that he is one of the partners in M/S Khandelwal Papers, running the business in craft paper, duplex board, MG Poster and there were business relations with the accused, in lieu of the aforesaid, the accused approached him for purchase of Paper and the same were duly supplied to him as per the requirement and orders. The factum of business relations is not disputed by the accused during his statement recorded under section 251 Cr.P.C and Section 313 Cr.P.C or during his evidence stage. Therefore, the factum of business relations stands proved, as averred in the Complaint and PSE affidavit.
Digitally signedRAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.10.28 16:45:59 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 11 OF 18
21. In view of the aforesaid purchase of shirts, the complainant issued Invoice bearing no. 895, Book no.20, dt. 18.03.2013 of Rs 2,57,516/- alongwith Delivery note (Ex.CW1/14 and Ex.CW1/15) and Invoice bearing no. 971, Book no.23, dt. 09.09.2013 of Rs. 2,01,224/- (Ex.CW1/16 and Ex.CW1/17) totalling to outstanding liability of Rs.3,73,740/- against the accused and the impugned cheques were issued for the part payment of aforesaid liability. In this regard, the Ledger account of the firm of the accused i.e. M/S Mansarover Packaging is placed on record as Ex.CW1/18.
22. The first line of defence raised by the accused during the statement of the accused recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C, was that defective material was supplied by the complainant and despite the due intimation in this regard, the complainant misused the impugned cheques issued against the supply of goods. He admitted to have filled all the particulars in the impugned cheques except the date. During his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused raises denied filling the other particulars in the cheques and stated that the impugned cheques were issued as security in year 2010, when the complainant visited his office for agreement to deal in paper. He opted to lead defence by stating that he had already discharged his liability against one bill of Rs 2.48 Lakhs and the rest of the material was found defective upon quality check and might have been scrapped in his custody. It is only after generating 3-4 bills that the complainant presented and misused the cheques in question.
23. During the defence evidence stage, the accused deposed in his chief examination for the first time that the entire transaction, which is the subject of dispute, took place with Vinod Khandelwal and not with the complainant. Further, the transaction took place in year 2013 and 8-9 security cheques were issued to Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA 16:46:04 Date: 2025.10.28 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 12 OF 18 Vinod Khandelwal at the time of agreement to purchase paper, in contradistinction to his cross-examination, wherein he admitted to have issued 10-12 security cheques to the complainant in year 2010. He testified that only material worth Rs.60,000/- was in good condition and remaining material was defective, which was communicated to Vinod Khandelwal through telephonic communication. Further, the payment for the goods of Rs.60,000/- was made vide a separate cheque in name of M/s Khandelwal Papers. His statement in the examination in chief that the particulars in impugned cheques were not filled by the accused was countered during his cross-examination, wherein he admitted that all the particulars in impugned cheques were filled by him except the date. He disputed the receipt of goods against Invoice bearing no. 971(Ex.CW1/17). In support, he placed reliance on his statement of account (Ex.DW1/1 colly), duly supported with certificate u/s 65-B IEA.
24. It is pertinent to note that the story about the part defective goods does not resonate with the conduct of any reasonable prudent person as they were neither returned to the complainant nor any written notice regarding them was sent to the complainant. In light of this observation, it is hard to fathom as to why several impugned cheques, as security, after filling their respective amounts, were handed over to the complainant for one order received by the accused, if no goods as to Invoice bearing no. 971(Ex.CW1/17) was ever delivered to the accused. It also raises doubt in the version of the accused in the present transaction as payment of Rs. 3,83,740/- corresponding to Invoice bearing no. 971(Ex.CW1/17), admitted by the accused during the question posed in his cross-examination, against the pending liability against the accused as on 28-06-2014, despite non-supply of goods alleged by the accused, as also supporting the ledger account of the complainant (Ex.CW1/18). Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28 16:46:10 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 13 OF 18
25. At this stage, Invoices (Ex.CW1/16) and (Ex.CW1/17) requires thoughtful consideration. The Tax Invoices raised mention the description, TIN No., Challan No., Weight, Unit Rate and total taxable value billed to the firm of the accused after the challan date i.e 18.03.2013 and 06.09.2013. Further, the payment date i.e. 25.03.2013 and 16.09.2013 after the transportation of goods through Vehicle (Lorry) bearing no. HR61A/5249 and DLHR/1749 at the designated address are clearly discernible. In support, the Delivery note forming part of Ex.CW1/16 and (Ex.CW1/17) details the vehicle and the carrier details qua the delivery of goods, duly signed on behalf of the firm of complainant and the accused. Hence, Invoices (Ex.CW1/16) and (Ex.CW1/17) are being relied upon for the adjudication of the present case.
25.1 The transaction in question is not disputed by the accused pertaining to 'Paper'. The Invoice Ex.CW1/16 is not disputed by the accused. Regarding the challenge to the Invoice Ex.CW1/17, except from the bald averment, no positive or negative evidence has been led to disprove the Ex.CW1/17.Hence, Ex.CW1/16 and Ex.CW1/17 stand proved.
ADMISSIBILITY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT DUE TO ABSENCE OF 65-B IEA CERTIFICATE
26. The transaction in question is not disputed by the accused pertaining to 'Paper'. The Invoice Ex.CW1/16 is not disputed by the accused. Regarding the challenge to the Invoice Ex.CW1/17, except from the bald averment, no positive or negative evidence has been led to disprove the Ex.CW1/17.Hence, Ex.CW1/16 and Ex.CW1/17 stand proved.
Digitally
signed by
RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA
SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28
16:46:16
+0530
CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 14 OF 18
27. Although Invoice Ex.CW1/17 also corresponds with the entry dated 06.09.2013 in the ledger Account statement of the firm of the complainant towards the total outstanding amount of Rs.3,73,740/- against the firm of the accused. The argument of Ld. counsel for the accused that the Ledger Account is inadmissible as it is not supported with certification u/s 65B IEA is rightly placed in light of the settled law but in the present factual matrix, apart from the ledger Account, documentary evidence in form of invoices have also been paced on record. Henceforth, the court is placing its reliance upon the Invoices Ex.CW1/16 and Ex.CW1/17 for fastening legal liability of the accused, which already stand proved as per the preceding paragraphs.
MAINTAINIBILITY OF COMPLAINT BEING FILED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
28. The argument of ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant is not authorised on behalf of the firm to file the present complaint case, does not resonate with the court record as the Payee of the impugned cheques is not the complainant but M/S Khandelwal Paper and it is undisputed that the transaction of the accused was with M/S Khandelwal Paper. Further, the statement of the accused that the transaction was indeed with Vinod Khandelwal and not with the complainant is not in consonance with the legal principles governing a Partnership firm. An act done by a partner without specific authority but with the consent of the other partners is valid and binding on the firm and all partners. The consent functions as a form of ratification, validating the partner's action. This principle is based on the idea of mutual agency, where each partner acts as an agent for the firm and the other partners in the course of business. Reference, in this regard be had to Section 18 of Partnership Act, 1932 that encompasses its Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28 16:46:24 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 15 OF 18 fold over the present proceedings as well. In addition, Sections 9, 12(a), 12(b), and 19 of the Partnership Act, 1932 clearly empowers a single partner can also file a complaint on behalf of the firm, unlike in case of the company, wherein ratification is required from the board of the directors.
28.1. The question of launching a valid criminal prosecution under section 138 of N.I. Act with the aid of power of attorney is no more res integra in view of the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (AIR 2014 SC 630). In his cross examination, CW1 has stated that he is the partner of the complainant firm. The same has been stated in the complaint as well. There is no legal requirement of filing of a formal power of attorney or an authority letter in case of a partner who is legally authorized to file a complaint on behalf of the firm.
29. The reliance placed by Ld. counsel for the accused on Judgments filed with the written submissions is misplaced as it is distinguishable on the facts that in the present case, the document of the partnership deed was not sought by ld. counsel for the accused during cross-examination of the complainant and despite such requisition, it was not produced by the complainant. The Court is not inclined to take a technical standpoint of the maintainability of the present complaint specifically, wherein the factum of transaction with the M/S Khandelwal Paper is admitted by the accused.
30. In the present case, the opportunity to prove his case by pointing out the holes in the story of the complainant was not availed by the accused. No evidence has been led by the accused to show that the transaction in dispute does not point to his legal liability. It is highly improbable that no police complaint regarding the alleged violation was filed on behalf of the accused. Further, no satisfactory Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28 16:46:30 +0530 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 16 OF 18 explanation has been furnished on the behalf of the accused as to why the concerned Bank was not intimated as to the misuse of the cheques by the complainant.
31. The present case is a perfect example of contradictory defences on behalf of the accused, none of which support his case. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused to prove his defence through positive or negative evidence that the impugned cheque was not issued for the friendly loan with the complainant to probabilise by adducing evidence or even by pointing out inconsistencies in the case of the complainant.
32. In totality, the accused has not been successful in raising a cloud over the story of the complainant that the impugned cheque was not issued for the aforesaid liability. Thus, plea of the accused does not inspire confidence due to lack of proof or pointing out inconsistencies in the complainant's case. As per the above discussion, it can be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the essential ingredient (ii) as discussed in the preceding paragraph stands fulfilled.
33. 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 not been able to do the same by bringing out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the version put forward by the complainant. The accused failed in discharging his burden of proof, in order to rebut the operation of the presumption.
RAVISHA Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA 16:46:36 +0530 Date: 2025.10.28 CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 17 OF 18
34. Reliance is being placed upon dictum of the Apex Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3126 OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12802 of 2022) Rajesh Jain versus Ajay Singh, raison d'etre of which circled around the questioning of the want of evidence on part of the complainant, in order to support his allegation of having extended loan to the accused, whereas it was held that the Courts ought to have instead concerned itself with the case set up by the accused and whether he had discharged his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque.
35. In my view, the complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability and has proved his case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the accused RAJEEV GUPTA , thus, stands convicted for the said offence.
36. This judgment contains 18 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA
SIDANA Date:
2025.10.28
16:46:42 +0530
(RAVISHA SIDANA)
JMFC, NI ACT-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, THC/28.10.2025
CC NO. no.513458/2016, 513459/2016 and 514353/2016 ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL v. RAJEEV GUPTA PAGE 18 OF 18