Delhi District Court
Jitendra Kumar Sharma vs Ms Manisha on 29 July, 2025
CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. NORMA JAIN,
JMFC (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: CC No.: 2267/2023
CNR NO.: DLST02-005289-2023
Jitendra Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma
R/o 689, 2nd Floor, Chiarg Delhi, New Delhi-110017.
Mob No. 9873292212 ......Complainant
versus
Manisha
W/o Nitin Falaswal
R/o 488, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi-110017
Mob No. 8287967870
Also At:
R/o -75, Upper Ground Floor,
Khasra No. 91, Old-70/3,
Village Ber Sarai, New Delhi-110016 .....Accused
JUDGEMENT
Date of Institution of Complaint : 14.03.2023 Police Station : Malviya Nagar Offence Complained of : u/s. 138 of NI Act Plea of Accused : Not Guilty Decision Qua Accused : Acquitted.
Date of Decision : 29.07.2025.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present complaint filed Digitally signed by NORMA NORMA JAIN JAIN Date:
CC No. 2267/2023 2025.07.29
16:28:41 +0530
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha Page No. 1 of 15
CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') by the complainant against the accused on account of dishonour of cheque bearing no. 199603 dated 21.12.2022 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Karnatka Bank Ltd. Malviya Nagar allegedly issued by the accused in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'cheque in question').
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
2. Brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the accused resided in the same building with her mother as that of the complainant and accordingly both had family relations with each other. The accused and her mother used to take money from the complainant as per their requirement. In December, 2021, after lockdown, the accused approached the complainant and asked for Rs.1,00,000/- citing some financial need, stating that the same will be returned shortly. Considering the same, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was advanced by the complainant to the accused. Thereafter, in the last week of March, 2022, the accused again approached the complainant and asked for Rs. 50,000/- from him, undertaking that Rs.50,000/- along with the previous loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be returned in the middle of December 2022. Considering the relations between the parties, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the accused. The accused gave the cheque in question to the complainant assuring that the same will get clear on presentation.
3. The complainant presented the cheque, however, on presentation, the cheque in question returned dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque return memo dated 23.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'return memo').
Digitally
signed by
NORMA JAIN
CC No. 2267/2023
NORMA Date:
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha
JAIN 2025.07.29
Page No. 2 of 15
16:28:36
+0530
CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023
Thereafter, a legal notice dated 21.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'legal notice') was sent to the accused and since no payment was made within 15 days of the service of legal notice, the present complaint came to be filed.
4. In support of the case of the complainant, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on averments made in the complaint, evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant, the presumption of law under Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act and the following documentary evidence:
S. No. Documents Exhibit No.
1. Original cheque in question Ex. CW1/1
2. Original Return memo Ex. CW1/2
3. Copy of Legal Demand Notice Ex. CW1/3
4. Copy of Screen shot of Whatsapp Ex. CW1/4
showing service of Legal notice
5. Postal Receipt alongwith tracking Ex. CW1/5(Colly)
report
6. Original Envelope returned Ex. CW1/6
CASE PROCEEDINGS
5. In the present matter, notice of accusation under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') was served on the accused on 08.02.2024 and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The plea of defence of the accused was also recorded by the court on the same day. In the plea of defence, accused admitted signing the cheque in question but denied filling the particulars on the same. She further submitted that she does not know the complainant and she gave the cheque in question to one Sachin Kaushik with whom her one case is pending. She denied the Digitally signed by CC No. 2267/2023 NORMA NORMA JAIN Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 Page No. 3 of 15 16:28:39 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 receipt of legal notice and stated that she is not residing at the first address mentioned in the same, however, admitted her second address to be correct. She further stated that she has no legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant in respect of the cheque in question and this is a false case filed against her after misusing her security cheque.
6. Oral application under Section 145 (2) NI Act of the accused was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2024 and she was granted an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The complainant entered in the witness box as CW1, he was duly cross-examined and was thereafter discharged. Since complainant did not wish to examine further witnesses, accordingly, the post-summoning evidence was closed vide order dated 21.01.2025.
7. During cross-examination of CW-1, the following documents were placed on record:
S. No. Documents Exhibit No.
1. Bank account statement Ex. CW-1/CX1(Colly)
8. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC was recorded on 21.01.2025 and all the incriminating evidence was put to her. During her statement, she stated that she does not know the complainant and before she was residing in Chirag Delhi and started living with her mother only before 2.5 years ago. She further stated that it is incorrect that in December 2021 & in March 2022, she asked the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.50,000/- and the same were given to her by the complainant in cash. She further stated that she did not give the cheque in question to the complainant and the same was with Sachin Digitally signed by CC No. 2267/2023 NORMA NORMA JAIN Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 Page No. 4 of 1516:28:31 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 Bhaiya who gave the same to the complainant. She further stated that she only signed the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/1, however, did not fill the same. She further stated that she is not aware about the return memo Ex. CW-1/2 and she denied the receipt of legal demand notice Ex. CW-1/3 and further stated that she has not been residing at the Chirag Delhi address from last 2.5 years and with respect to the second address, the floor mentioned in the same is Upper Ground Floor, however, she reside at 1st Floor.
9. Since the accused chose to lead Defence Evidence in her statement under Section 313 CrPC, matter was fixed for filing of appropriate application under Section 315 CrPC along with list of witnesses. In support of her defence, the accused examined herself as DW-1. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and was accordingly discharged. Since no other witness was sought to be examined by the accused, DE was closed vide order dated 20.05.2025 and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
10. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to advance a sum of ₹1,50,000/- to the accused. He further argued that no evidence was brought by the complainant to show the lending of the loan amount nor the same was shown by the complainant in his ITR.
12. He further argued that the ingredients under Section 138 of NI Act have not been fulfilled in the present case as the complainant failed to prove that the legal notice was delivered to the accused and that the addresses stated by the complainant in the legal notice are the Digitally CC No. 2267/2023 signed by NORMA JAIN Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha NORMA Date: Page No. 5 of 15 JAIN 2025.07.29 16:28:33 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 correct addresses of the accused.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the initial burden lied on the accused to disprove the case as the signatures on the cheque in question are admitted and she failed to rebut the presumption. He further argued that the accused though stated that the cheque has been misused, however, she neither filed any complaint in this regard nor she approached her bank for stopping the payment of the same.
14. He further argued that the accused has admitted her addresses mentioned on the legal demand notice to be correct, accordingly, it cannot be said that the legal demand notice was not received by the accused.
LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION
15. It would be apposite to first consider the legal position serving as base to the offence underlying Section 138 of NI Act. The following legal requirements need to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd.: (2000) 2 SCC 745:
(i) that a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;
(ii) that 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;
(iii) that the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(iv) that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money CC No. 2267/2023 Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha Page No. 6 of 15 Digitally signed by NORMA NORMA Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.07.29 16:28:25 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 by giving a notice in writing, 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;
(v) that the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;
The above legal requirements are cumulative, meaning thereby that only if all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied, the person who had drawn the cheque be held liable for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
16. Burden of proof: The claim based under the provisions of NI Act is an exception to the general rule of law that burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The two specific provisions viz. Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of NI Act contemplates that a presumption is attached in regard to each and every negotiable instrument that the same was drawn and issued against due discharge of the liability and thus, whenever any claim is made on the basis of a negotiable instrument, the presumption has to be drawn in favour of the holder of the cheque (drawee) and the law has put the burden to rebut the presumption on the accused that the cheque was not issued by him against discharge of a debt or a liability.
17. The rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'. In case, the accused is not able to rebut the presumption and fails to prove his defence, the presumption becomes absolute and it has to be assumed that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of debt or liability and Digitally signed by CC No. 2267/2023 NORMA NORMA Date:
JAIN Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha JAIN 2025.07.29 Page No. 7 of 15 16:28:28 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 consequently, accused is assumed guilty of the offence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of Rangappa versus Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441 and Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 (6) SCC.
REASONS FOR DECISION
18. The signatures on the cheque in question are admitted by the accused, as the signatures on the cheque in question are admitted, presumption under Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of the NI Act is raised in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued for a legally enforceable debt and/or liability and now it is on the accused to prove the same otherwise.
19. The accused has primarily taken two defences in the present case, firstly, that the legal notice was never received by her, thereby, the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are not fulfilled in the present case and secondly that she has no liability towards the complainant.
20. With regards to the first defence of the accused, the accused denied receiving the legal notice and she in her plea of defence stated that she has not been residing at the first address but admitted her second address to be correct. When her statement under Section 313 Crpc was recorded, she stated that she has not been residing at the first address from last 2.5 years and further stated that in the second address, 'upper ground floor' has been written, though she resides at the '1st Floor'.
21. The tracking reports Ex. CW1/5 (Colly) and Ex. CW1/6 (Colly) shows the legal notice was ' delivered' on one of the addresses and on the other address, it returned as 'unclaimed'. The accused firstly admitted his second address to be correct, however, thereafter Digitally CC No. 2267/2023 signed by Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha NORMA NORMA JAIN Page No. 8 of 15 JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 16:28:20 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 stated that the second address should have been 'First Floor', instead of 'Upper Ground Floor'. In Delhi, generally, 'First Floor' and 'Upper Ground Floor' are used interchangeably.
22. Nevertheless, nothing has been led by the accused to prove as to when she left the first address and that the second address mentioned on the legal notice is incorrect and the complainant was aware about the same.
23. As the addresses are correct, presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act (hereinafter referred to as 'GCA') is raised qua delivery of the legal notice. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr 2007 AIR SCW 3578 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
'15. Insofar as the question of disclosure of necessary particulars with regard to the issue of notice in terms of proviso
(b) of Section 138 of the Act, in order to enable the Court to draw presumption or inference either under Section 27 of the G.C. Act or Section 114 of the Evidence Act, is concerned, there is no material difference between the two provisions. In our opinion, therefore, when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with. It is needless to emphasise that the complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of the issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the Court is required to be prima facie satisfied that a case under the said Section is made out and the aforenoted mandatory statutory procedural requirements have been complied with. It is then for the drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice and show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tendered or that the report of the postman was incorrect. In our opinion, this interpretation of the provision would effectuate the object and purpose for which proviso to Section 138 was enacted, namely, to avoid unnecessary hardship to an honest drawer of a cheque and to CC No. 2267/2023 Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha Digitally Page No. 9 of 15 signed by NORMA JAIN NORMA Date:
JAIN 2025.07.29
16:28:22
+0530
CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023
provide him an opportunity to make amends.' '17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by 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 G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice, a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act."
24. As presumption under Section 27 GCA is in favour of the complainant and nothing has been led by the accused to prove the contrary, the first defence of the accused falls on the ground.
25. With regards to the second defence of the accused , the accused has stated that she has/had no debt/liability towards the complainant as no money was taken by her from the complainant.
26. It is the case of the complainant that he advanced a sum of ₹1,50,000/- in cash to the accused, which has been denied by the accused. The Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the complainant failed to show that at the relevant period he had the financial capacity to advance such a huge amount to the accused.
27. To decide whether the complainant has been able to explain his financial capacity, it is important to see the cross-examination of the Digitally signed by NORMA NORMA JAIN CC No. 2267/2023 JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha Page No. 10 of 15 16:28:14 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 complainant qua his financial capacity:
"I paid the rent of Rs.4500/- per month. In 2021, I took small- small contracts of renovations for Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. I cannot tell my exact income in 2021 as sometimes it was more than Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month and sometimes it was less than that. In 2021, my family members were my wife and my two children. The monthly expenditure of my family was around Rs.15,000/- in 2021.
I cannot tell exactly how much amount I had in my bank in December 2021 and I can tell the same only after looking in my bank account statement. I had the money with me at my home as I do renovation work and I have to pay the laborers, out of the said amount I paid the accused. I file ITR. I did not file ITR for the year 2021. In March 2022, the accused gave me the cheque in question, however, apart from it no document was executed qua the money which I gave to her."
28. It is highly improbable that an individual with no fixed source of income, paying rent of Rs.4500/-, earning approximately Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and having a wife and two dependent children to support with monthly expenses amounting to around Rs.15,000/-, would be in a financial position to advance a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to another person.
29. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant brought his bank account statement Ex. CW1/CX1 (Colly), which shows that in March, 2022, Rs.5,00,000/- were there in his bank account.
30. As per the case of the complainant, only Rs.50,000/- were given by the complainant to the accused in March 2022. Though it is not known that if the accused had the said amount in his account, why he did not transfer the same through his account, nevertheless, the same does not prove that the complainant had the financial capacity to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused in December, 2021.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that CC No. 2267/2023 Digitally signed by NORMA Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha NORMA JAIN Page No. 11 of 15 JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 16:28:16 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 in cases where the loan is stated to be advanced in cash by the complainant and the accused raises questions about the financial capacity of the complainant, then the burden shifts on the complainant to prove his financial capacity. Reliance in this regard is placed Tedhi Singh Versus Narayan Dass Mahant Criminal Appeal No.362 Of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019) (Date of decision:7th March, 2022) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
7. It is true that this is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides that Court shall presume that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
This presumption, however, is expressly made subject to the position being proved to the contrary. In other words, it is open to the accused to establish that there is no consideration received. It is in the context of this provision that the theory of 'probable defence' has grown. In an earlier judgment, in fact, which has also been adverted to in Basalingappa (supra), this Court notes that Section 139 of the N.I. Act is an example of reverse onus [see (2010) 11 SCC 441). It is also true that this Court has found that the accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. It is accordingly that the principle has developed that all which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and circumstances that exist.
9. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent the Courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very CC No. 2267/2023 Digitally signed Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha by NORMA NORMA JAIN Page No. 12 of 15 JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 16:28:11 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.
32. Reliance is also placed by this Court on the judgment of APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Ors. 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 155, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"6.4 Now so far as the reliance is placed by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the decision of this Court in the case of Basalingappa (supra), on going through the said decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the accused. In that case before this Court, the defence by the accused was that the cheque amount was given by the complainant to the accused by way of loan. When the proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the accused denied the debt liability and the accused raised the defence and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. To that, the complainant failed to prove and establish his financial capacity. Therefore, this Court was satisfied that the accused had a probable defence and consequently in absence of complainant having failed to prove his financial capacity, this Court acquitted the accused. In the present case, the accused never questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. We are of the view that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque. That is not a case here."
33. To my mind, the complainant has failed to show that at the Digitally signed by NORMA NORMA JAIN CC No. 2267/2023 JAIN Date:
2025.07.29 Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha 16:28:08 Page No. 13 of 15 +0530 CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023 relevant period, he had the financial capacity to advance a loan of ₹1,50,000/- to the accused.
34. Further, the complainant in her complaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit stated that he gave ₹1,50,000/- to the accused, no date has been mentioned when the same was given nor any document was brought by the complainant to show the advancing of the loan amount to the accused. The complainant simply stated that the accused approached him in December, 2021 and thereafter in March, 2022 and accordingly, the money was advanced by him.
35. As per the case of the complainant, the transaction took place for over a year, however, it is surprising to note that no document was executed between the parties qua the loan amount nor any conversation in writing happened between the parties regarding the same. The complainant neither showed the loan amount in his ITR nor he brought any evidence ocular or documentary to prove the same.
36. Further no question/suggestion was put to the accused by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant regarding the loan amount.
37. In cases under Section 138 of NI Act, the burden on the accused is only to the extent of 'preponderance of probabilities' by which doubts have to be raised in the mind of the Court qua the story of the complainant, once the same has been done, the burden shifts back upon the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
38. In the present case, the accused was successful in rebutting the presumption. On the other hand, the complainant failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the same, the accused was successful in proving her second defence.
FINAL ORDER
CC No. 2267/2023 Digitally signed
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha NORMA by NORMA JAIN
Date:
Page No. 14 of 15
JAIN 2025.07.29
16:28:04 +0530
CNR No.: DLST02-005289-2023
39. It is imperative to understand that in order to pronounce a conviction in a criminal case, the accused 'must be' guilty and not merely 'may be' guilty. For an accused to be guilty, guilt should not be based on mere surmises and conjectures but it should be based on cogent evidence.
40. Merely because the cheque was issued from an account maintained by the accused or that the accused is unable to give any reasonable explanation regarding the possession of the cheque by the complainant would not invite the culpability under Section 138 of the NI Act and the complainant is required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was required to destabilise the law of presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and she has successfully done that as apparent from the record and from the evidence led during the trial.
41. Upon comprehensive appreciation of the evidence led on record, it appears that neither the capacity of the complainant to advance the alleged loan nor the existence of debt or liability has been proved on record by the complainant beyond reasonable doubt and accused has been successful in raising a "probable defence" and strong suspicion over the case put forth by prosecution.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Manisha W/o Nitin Falaswal is hereby acquitted of offence under Section 138 of Digitally signed NORMA by Negotiable Instruments Act.
NORMA JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.07.29 16:27:57 +0530 Announced in Open Court (Norma Jain) on 29.07.2025 JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-01 South, Saket Courts, New Delhi Note: This judgment contains 15 signed pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.CC No. 2267/2023
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manisha Digitally signed Page No. 15 of 15 NORMA by NORMA JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.07.29 16:28:00 +0530