Delhi District Court
Ms Bebb India Pvt Ltd vs Ms Pratik Enterprises on 22 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Complaint No.:4993649/2016
Bebb India Pvt Ltd. ......... Complainant
Versus
M/s Pratik Enterprises ......... Accused
1. Name & address of the complainant : Bebb India Pvt. Ltd.
Office at 1B, Vikrant Enclave,
Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
2. Name & address of the accused : M/s Pratik Enterprises
Mr. Chintan Shah(Authorised
Signatory of Pratik Enterprises)
R/o 408/A, Spectrum Comm.
Centre, Near Relief Cinema,
Relief Road,
Ahmedabad-380001
3. Offence complained of : U/S 138, The Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881.
4. Date of Institution of case : 02.01.2016
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Acquitted
7. Date of decision of the case : 22.07.2025
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 1/16
Digitally signed
DIVYA by DIVYA
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.22
15:41:38 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case as filed by the complainant, Bebb India Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against accused, Pratik Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the accused no. 1), Chintan Shah (hereinafter referred to as the accused no.
2). The present complaint has been filed against the accused u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. The brief facts as alleged by the complainant company in the complaint are that complainant has been carrying business of sales, supply chain, marketing, finance, human resources IT etc and accused no. 2 being the proprietor of accused no. 1 negotiated with the complainant on various occasion for supply PP H 110 MA by the complainant company and the accused admitted its liability and toward the repayment issued the cheque bearing no. 915606 dated 18.04.2015 for a sum of Rs. 29,03,572/- drawn on Deutsche bank Tekra, Ahmedabad-380006(cheque in question) to discharge his liability towards the loan which included interest, overdue charges and bounce charges etc.
3. When the complainant presented the cheque in question to his banker IDBI Bank, the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant vide cheque returning memo dated 25.04.2025 with the remarks "funds insufficient".
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 2/16 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 SINGH 15:41:46 +0530
4. Thereafter, complainant served a Legal Demand Notice dated 07.05.2015 upon the accused through speed post asking accused to repay the loan amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint case with the submission that accused person be summoned, tried and punished according to law.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant in the pre-summoning evidence, examined himself as CW1 by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/1 and relied upon following documents which are as follows:
a) Copy of Board resolution is Ex. CW1/A;
b) Original Cheque Ex. CW1/B;
c) returning memo Ex. CW1/C;
d) copy of Legal Notice Ex. CW1/D;
e) Receipt of postal department is Ex. CW1/E;
f) Copy of delivery report is Ex.CW1/F; and
g) Copy of purchase order/invoices is Mark CW1/G(colly)
6. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence and upon finding prima facie case against both the accused persons, the accused persons were summoned for an offence punishable under section 138 NI Act. Thereafter Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against the accused on 27.09.2025 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He denied receiving the legal demand notice.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 3/16 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 15:41:51 +0530
7. Thereafter, CW-1 examined, cross-examined on 09.08.2023, 08.07.2024 & 25.11.2024 and discharged and matter was listed for statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC.
8. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 11.12.2024, wherein all the incriminating circumstances which were against the accused.
9. Thereafter, on 25.04.2025, accused closed his DE vide separate statement and matter was fixed for final arguments.
10.Final arguments were heard at length from both the parties, the evidence led by the parties carefully considered and record thoroughly perused.
11.Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic provision of Section 138 of NI Act,1881. In order to ascertain whether accused has committed offence u/s 138 NI Act the following ingredients have to be proved which are as follows:
A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability;
cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
That cheque has been 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;
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 4/16 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 15:41:56 +0530 The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and 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 Analysis
12.In the present case, accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, in answer to notice u/s 251 Cr. P.C and in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Further the presentation of the cheque in question for encashment and dishonorment of the cheque for the reason "funds insufficient" is not in dispute, as it is a matter of record proved by return memo dated 25.04.2015 Ex. CW1/C. Therefore, it is a matter of record that cheque in question dated 18.04.2015 Ex. CW1/B was presented within its validity period and dishonored by the bank of accused. Further, it is also not in dispute that impugned cheque was issued by the accused and was drawn on his bank account.
13.Reference can be made to Judgment of Apex Court in Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898,that, "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant."
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 5/16 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.22 15:42:01 +0530
14.Thus, as per the scheme of the Act, on proof of the foundational facts, a presumption arises as to the cheque having been issued in discharge of a legal liability, and the burden of proof lies upon the accused to rebut the said presumption. This clearly is an instance of the rule of 'reverse onus' in action, where it is incumbent on the accused to lead what can be called 'negative evidence'. It has been held in M/s. Kumar Exports v. M/s. Sharma Carpets, [2009 A.I.R. (SC) 1518] that the accused may rebut these presumptions by leading direct evidence and in some exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial.
15. In relation to the legal demand notice, accused stated both when notice u/s 251 Cr.PC and statement u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded that he did not receive any legal notice. The plea of non-receipt of legal notice does not aid the accused. At this juncture, this Court seeks guidance from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 wherein it has been held that , where 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 Act stands complied with.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 6/16 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.22 15:42:06 +0530
16.The plea of non-receipt of legal notice by the accused is not tenable and, accused can be said to have good notice of the present complaint. Accused has failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of due service. Despite receipt of summons from the court accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque in question to the complainant, thus implying the satisfaction of the fourth condition.
17.Following the above, the only question remaining for determination is whether a legally valid and enforceable debt existed qua the complainant and whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused/drawer in discharge of said liability/debt. Further, it is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities.
18.In the present matter, the accused has admitted that he had business dealings with the complainant in his notice framed under section 251 Crpc and statement recorded under section 313 Crpc. Further, the complainant in his complaint has stated that M/s Pratik Enterprise and accused Mr Chintan Shah being the authorised signatory of the M/S Pratik Enterprise negotiated with the complainant for a business transaction and towards the repayment of his admitted liability amount issued a cheque amounting to rupees 29,03,572/- which was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient". In support of his case, the CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 7/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:42:15 +0530 complainant examined its authorised representative as CW1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. CW1/1 and relied upon several documents including board resolution Ex. CW1/A, cheque Ex. CW1/B, return memo Ex. CW1/C, legal notice Ex. CW1/D, postal receipt Ex. CW1/E, delivery report Ex. CW1/F, copy of purchase orders/invoices Mark CW1/G (colly), and also, the ledger account of the accused maintained by the complainant, which is exhibited as Ex. CW1/H.
19.First defence taken by the accused is that the cheque in question was issued to the complainant for the purpose of security.
20.Before, evaluating the claim of the accused let us understand the position with regard to the security cheque as settled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Chand Goyal vs Amit Sighal;
"The contention that the cheque was issued only as security is preposterous. The cheque whether issued for payment of debt or as security makes no distinction in law. The cheque is a negotiable instrument, it may be that sometimes the cheque is issued with a request on the part of the drawer to defer the presentation of the cheque for some time to enable the drawer to make payment by cash and take back the cheque or allow time to arrange funds for encashment of cheque. When the amount is not paid as per oral understanding the payee is well justified to present the cheque for encashment. The cheque even if it is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encash able security at the hands of payee. Therefore, merely because the drawer contends that it is issued as security is not a ground to exonerate the penal liability under Sec.138 of the NI Act"
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 8/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.07.22 15:42:22 +0530
21.Therefore, the defence of the accused that cheque in question was issued as security cheque has no force. Also, for proving the fact that the cheque in question was given by the accused in a blank signed cheque manner for the purpose of security to the complainant, accused has not brought on record any material or record that the same was submitted as security.
22.Another major defence taken by the accused is that the Ledger account exhibit CW 1/H shows lesser amount than that mentioned on the cheque in question, hence accused cannot be made liable as the liability of the accused is not clear. Further, there is no mention in the complaint, evidence affidavit or legal notice as to how the liability or the cheque amount is calculated by the complainant. Perusal of the said ledger reveals that the closing balance as on 31.03.2015 is only ₹28,56,525/-, whereas the cheque amount is ₹29,03,572/-, indicating an unexplained discrepancy. No supplementary document, invoice, credit/debit note, or any communication has been placed on record to explain this difference or to establish how the figure of ₹29,03,572/- was calculated. No calculation has been given or provided during the entire course of trial as to how, and on what basis the liability to the tune of cheque amount has been calculated.
23.It is a settled proposition of law that presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is a rebuttable presumption standard of proof CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 9/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:42:28 +0530 being that of preponderance of probabilities and accused has raised a probable defence and now the burden has shifted upon the complainant.
24.During the course of final arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that an amount of ₹50,000/- was added subsequently by the company to "evade tax implications."
However, such a submission remains a mere averment unsupported by any document or admission by the accused and cannot be accepted in absence of cogent evidence and will not discharge the burden shifted on the complainant.
25.In the present case, the accused has successfully cast doubt on the complainant's claim by pointing out the discrepancies. The complainant, in turn, has failed to produce any document, computation as to how the liability of Rs. 29,03,572/- was calculated. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the complainant has failed to discharge the burden which shifted back upon the complainant after the accused raised a probable defence.
26.Further, the complainant had filed a series of email communications between the parties, which, although not exhibited, were produced in court. The emails reveals that the amount repeatedly referred to and demanded therein by the complainant is ₹28,56,525/- and not ₹29,03,572/-, which is the amount of the cheque in question. Even during the final arguments, the complainant has not pointed out as to whether CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 10/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:42:36 +0530 the amount of ₹29,03,572/- is due and payable by the accused and is actually claimed by the complainant.
27.The complainant has also placed reliance on several judgements to support his case. Same are as follows: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satyendra Jain v. Omway Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS (OS) 47/2011, wherein it is held in Para 14 that:
"The pleadings and transactions of commercial persons cannot be viewed on the same principles as applicable to transactions between family members or laypersons. A commercial/ business person who has signed documents and issued cheques in pursuance thereto cannot be lightly allowed to shake off the effect of such documents. We are here dealing with villagers but with astute, street smart, hard-nosed, shrewd businessmen. Courts cannot be blind to the prevalent business practices and environment and cannot afford to continue to decide modern day transactions on ancient principles/ precedents.
28.Complainant has further relied upon the case Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka titled Dr. K.G.Ramachandra Gupta and Anr. Versus Dr. G. Adinarayana 2000(3) Kar LJ 481 : Para 20....
Regarding the defence taken by the accused that the above said cheques were not issued by him, for repayment of the loan amount, but, they were blank cheques issued by him, enabling the complainant to avail cheque discount facility, the accused has not adduced any evidence in support of the said contention and he has not chosen to send any reply to the legal notices issued by the complainant which were served on him in all these cases denying the facts alleged in the said notices that the said cheques were issued for the above said amounts towards repayment of the loans taken by him under the pronotes executed by him, the details of which are given in the said notice......
.......... It cannot, therefore, be said that the accused has denied the execution of the pronotes produced in all these cases. So, the presumption is available under Section 118 of the Act in favour of CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 11/16 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.22 15:42:44 +0530 the complainants that all the pronotes produced are supported by consideration. "
29.Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Hiten P. Dalal Versus Bratindranath Banerjee 2001(2) ACR 1492 SC wherein it is held :
"Para 33.. As far as the appellant's defence was concerned, he did not enter the witness box to support his case that the four cheques in particular had been given in respect of any arrangement or in respect of any transactions, which did not materialize.
Para 36 :............. The appellant alone could have said why he had admittedly executed the four cheques, handed them over to the Bank and never asked for their return. He did not choose to do so."
30.Reliance was placed on the judgment titled General Auto Sales v/s Vijay Laxmi, wherein Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed that "Even if a blank cheque has been given towards liability or even a security, when the liability is assessed and quantified, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannat co criminal liability arising out of section 138 of N.I. Act."
31.Reliance was further placed on the judgment titled as "Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. Swara) Pat (2008) DLT 882, where it is held that there is no altercation in a cheque if the amount and o date are filled by somebody else apart from the signatory of the cheque, It is also held to there is no law that requires the filling up of entire cheque by the drawer himself.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 12/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:42:51 +0530
32.Reliance is placed on the judgment titled as "Ravi Chopra Vs. State & Anrs." 2008 (2) LRC 118 (Del), wherein, it is held that "if a blank signed cheque is given then it is possible that the drawer has consented impliedly or expressly to filling up of the cheque by the payee on a later date".
33.Reliance was further placed on the judgment titled as Vijender Singh Vs. Eicher Motors Limited & Anr.", wherein it is held that any person who issues blank signed cheque should understand the consequences of doing so."
34.Judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lillykutty v. Lawrance 2003 (20) DCR 610 in the following words:
In the instant case, signature is admitted. According to the drawer of the cheque, amount and the name has been written not by the drawer but by somebody else or by the payee and tried to get it encashed. We are of the view, by putting the amount and the name there is not material alteration on the cheque under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In fact, there is no alteration but only adding the amount and the date. There is no rule in banking business that payee's name as well as the amount should be written by drawer himself. In the instant case Bank has never found that the cheque was tempered with or forged or there is material alteration or that the handwriting by which the payee's name and the amount was written was differed. The Bank was willing to honour the cheques if sufficient funds were there in the account of the drawer even if the payee's name and the amount was written by somebody else other than the holder of the account or the drawer of the cheque. The mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown are not in the handwriting of the drawer does not invalidate the cheque. No law provides in the case of cheques the entire body has to be written by the drawer only. What is material is the signature of the drawer and not the body of the instrument.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 13/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:42:58 +0530 Therefore when the drawer has issued the cheque whether the entire body was written by the drawer written beyond the instructions of the drawer, whether the amount is due or not, those and such matters are defenses which drawer has to raise and prove it.
Therefore, the mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque are in different handwriting is not a reasons for not honoring the cheque by the Bank. Banks would normally see whether the instrument is that of the drawer and the cheque has been signed by the drawer himself. The burden is therefore entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the date, amount and the payee's name are written by somebody else without the knowledge and consent of the drawer."
35.Complainant has relied on the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal and Ors., "once the cheque has been issued and the same has been presented and upon its dishonor, the procedure prescribed for issuance of the notice had been followed, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act arises immediately."
36.Complainant has relied on the case of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled " Satyendra Jain Versus M/s Omway Buildestate Pvt Ltd. And Ors. CS (OS) 47/2011 wherein it is held in Para 14 that:
"The pleadings and transactions of commercial persons cannot be viewed on the same principles as applicable to transactions between family members or laypersons. A commercial/ business person who has signed documents and issued cheques in pursuance thereto cannot be lightly allowed to shake off the effect of such documents. We are here not dealing with villagers but with astute, street smart, hard-nosed, shrewd businessmen. The Courts cannot be blind to the prevalent business practices and environment and cannot afford to continue to decide modern day transactions on ancient principles/ precedents."
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 14/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:43:05 +0530
37.While these judgments outline clear legal principles regarding presumptions under the NI Act, it is also a settled law that the presumption under NI Act is a rebuttable presumption. The accused has to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant by raising a probable defence and the standard of proof is only 'preponderance of probabilities'. In the present case, the defense has raised significant doubts about the existence and amount of the legally enforceable liability. As already discussed above, the complainant did not explain how they arrived at the cheque amount of ₹29,03,572/-.
38.The accused has thus been able to sufficiently rebut the presumption of Section139/Section 118 of the NI Act. It is a well settled principle of law that prosecution has to stand on its own leg and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rahul Builders vs. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemicals and Anr. (2008) 2SCC 321, NI Act envisages application of the similar provisions which needs to be construed strictly. Also, even if two views in the matter are possible, the court should lean in favour of the view which is beneficial to the accused.
39.Therefore, in the present case the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Complainant has not been able to prove his case and there are some serious lacuna in the story of the complainant. Moreover, the presumption of law which is to be CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 15/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:43:11 +0530 drawn in favour of drawee, namely the complainant that the cheque has been issued for the valid discharge of his debt, get dislodged by a plausible explanation furnished by the accused.
40.In light of above facts and circumstances, the accused has probablized his defence by exposing gaping holes in the case of complainant. Complainant was not able to justify as to how the cheque amount was arrived at. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque had been issued in discharge of any legal debt or other liability. The accused has been able to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant as the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of the accused is only 'preponderance of probabilities'.
41.Accordingly, Both the accused no. 1 M/s Pratik Enterprises & accused no. 2 Sh. Chintan Shah is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act with respect to the cheque in question.
Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.07.22 15:43:17 +0530 Announced in the open court on Divya Singh 22.07.2025 JMFC-NI Act-03, South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 16/16