Delhi District Court
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (2010) 11 Scc 441 And Also In ... on 30 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LANDOL,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NI ACT DIGITAL COURT- 03, NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR
1. Complaint Case no. : 2474/2021
2. Date of Institution of case : 13.04.2021(As per Layers
Software)
3. Name of the complainant : Shamsher Singh
S/o Sh. Bhup Singh, R/o Jhuggi No. A-
310/1, Kusumpur Pahari, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110057
4. Name and address of Accused : Rajender Kumar
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o A-14, Kusumpur Pahari
Vasant Vihar, Near Balmiki Mandir
New Delhi-110057
5. Offence complained of : Section 138 NI Act
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted
8. Date of judgment : 30.05.2023
-:JUDGMENT :-
1. This judgment shall decide and dispose off Criminal Complaint Case
No.2474/2021; titled as Shamsher Singh v. Rajender Kumar; instituted under Section
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 1 of 15
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30
16:53:12 +0530
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter NI Act) for the dishonour of
one cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only).
2. It is the case of the complainant that he is maintaining friendly relations with
the accused since 10 years. At repeated requests of accused, complainant provided a
friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) for a period of two months
and the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 558219 dated 19.12.2020 for Rs.
2,00,000/-. After passing of 2 months and assurance given by the accused, the
complainant presented the above mentioned cheque (cheque in dispute) [Ex. CW-
1/A], however, it came to be dishonoured with remark "Funds Insufficient" vide a
return memorandum dated 19.12.2020 [Ex. CW-1/B]. Thereafter, complainant
immediately contacted the accused and accused requested the complainant to
redeposit the cheque in March 2021 and again assured that the cheque would be
honoured upon presentation. Thereafter, complainant again presented the cheque,
however, it came to be dishonoured with remark "Funds Insufficient" vide a return
memorandum dated 12.03.2021 [Ex. CW-1/C]. The complainant eventually sent a
legal demand notice dated 22.03.2021 [Ex. CW-1/D] to the accused through speed
post vide postal receipts dated 22.03.2021[Ex. CW-1/E]. Despite service of the
notice as shown by internet generated tracking report [Ex. CW-1/F], no payment was
received by the complainant. The accused having failed to make the payment within
the statutory period of 15 days, the present complaint has been filed by the
complainant against the accused.
3. The complainant was directed to submit the original case documents
(complaint, affidavit of pre-summoning evidence, cheque and annexed documents)
with the Court, a condition precedent to the taking of cognizance of the complaint, as
per SOP/Guidelines issued by the SCMSC Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for
functioning of Digital Courts. Pursuant to the said compliance, vide order dated
10.11.2021, after being satisfied that prima facie ingredients of Section 138 NI Act
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 2 of 15
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30
16:53:39 +0530
are made out cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued against
the accused. Accused entered into appearance on 29.11.2021 and was admitted to bail
on the same date. Upon seeing a possibility of settlement, matter was referred to
mediation, however, settlement failed and notice under Section 251 Cr.PC was
framed and served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The accused then expressed their willingness to move an application under Sec.
145(2) NI Act. Upon the submission of the Ld. Counsel for complainant that he has
no objection to the said application and also considering the facts of the case and
defence taken by accused, the oral application stood allowed. The matter was then
listed for recording of evidence through video conference through Cisco Webex Meet
in compliance of the Project Implementation Guidelines 2020 laid down by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi and Video Conferencing Rules 2021 issued by Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi dated 26.10.2021. AR for Complainant was examined and cross-
examined as CW-1. He tendered his affidavit in post summoning evidence (as the
solitary witness) and relied upon following documents:
i) Original cheque in dispute bearing no. 558219: Ex. CW-1/A.
ii) Bank Return memo dated 19.12.2020: Ex. CW-1/B.
iii) Bank Return memo dated 12.03.2021: Ex. CW-1/C.
iv) Legal Demand Notice dated 22.03.2021: Ex. CW-1/D.
v) Postal receipts dated 22.03.2021: Ex. CW-1/E.
vi) Internet generated tracking report: Ex. CW-1/F.
vii) Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian Evidence Act: Ex. CW-1/G.
5. After the conclusion of complainant evidence, accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.PC wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to him. Accused
then moved an application u/s. 315 CrPC which was allowed. Thereafter, accused
was examined and cross-examined as DW-1. Accused then closed his defence
evidence.
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 3 of 15
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30
16:53:45 +0530
6. Final arguments have been heard at length. Complete record including the
written submissions filed by Ld. Counsel for complainant have been perused
carefully.
7. The Court shall now deal with the defence taken by the accused and
contentions of both the parties.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED:
8. While framing notice u/s. 251 Cr.PC, accused has taken a defence that he had
given the cheque in dispute along with another cheque bearing no. 558220 to one
person who had promised him to assist in availing a loan from Bank of India. That on
earlier occasions also, the said person whose name he did not know had helped him
in availing loan. That he did not take any loan from the complainant and did not
know how the cheque in dispute came in the hands of the complainant. Further, one
person namely Deepak has filed another complaint against him in Gohana, near
Sonipat qua the cheque bearing no. 558220. He further stated that he was suspicious
that the person to whom the cheque in dispute was given is a relative of the
complainant. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC, accused has reiterated his defence to the
extent that he did not take any loan from the complainant. In addition, he has stated
that there was some issue regarding a chit fund committee for Rs. 30,000/- to Rs.
40,000/- with the complainant. Accused has further stated that he had given the
cheque in dispute along with another cheque to Deepak Kumar (a relative of
complainant) as he had promised him to secure a loan. However, Deepak stopped
answering to his calls. He has further admitted receiving of legal demand notice and
has also stated that he has to pay Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant
towards the chit fund committee and not towards any kind of loan.
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 4 of 15
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
Date:
LANDOL 2023.05.30
16:53:50
+0530
9. In the final arguments, complainant has asserted its case for conviction against
the accused essentially on the ground of having proved the cause of action against
him, beyond all reasonable doubt. This is premised on the substantive proof of
presentation of the cheques in dispute admittedly issued by the accused with his
signature, their return as dishonoured from the payee's bank upon presentation for
encashment and non-payment by the accused of the legally enforceable debts within
the statutorily prescribed period, despite service of legal demand notice. It is
submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant:
i) That the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in dispute, hence,
presumption u/s. 139 read with Sec. 118(a) NI Act is in favour of the complainant and
against the accused.
ii) That the accused has failed to show that he had given the cheque in dispute to the
complainant to secure a loan.
iii) That the complainant does not run any chit fund committee and the accused has
failed to prove the same.
iv) That the accused has only made a bald averment that the complainant has misused
the cheque in dispute whereas he himself has admitted the issuance of cheque to the
complainant and he ought to have proved that the cheque in dispute does not bear his
handwriting. Mere denial is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant.
Reliance is placed on K.N Beena v. Muniyappan (2001) 8 SCC 458.
v) That the accused has failed to give reply to the legal demand notice and the
complainant has passed the test of credibility during his cross-examination.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has prayed for dismissal of the
complaint and acquittal of the accused on several counts:
i) That the cheque in dispute along with another cheque was given to the complainant
in blank for securing a loan. Particulars on the cheque in dispute i.e. name, amount
and date were not filled by the accused. Complainant filled the amount and has
misused the cheque in dispute.
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 5 of 15
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30
16:53:56 +0530
ii) That the complainant has not filed any bank transaction or brought any witness to
prove the advancement of loan in question. Further, no receiving of loan in question
or any other document in that regard has been filed on record.
iii) That it is not possible to hand over money to an unknown person as stated by the
complainant during his cross-examination.
iv) That the Complainant was running a chit fund committee and accused is still
liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- to complainant in that regard and not
towards any loan.
11. It is now pertinent to examine the factual matrix of the case in the light of the
ingredients of the provision as produced herein:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him
with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person
from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of
the amount of money standing to the credit of that 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 that
bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and
shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or
with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with
both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless
--
(a) 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;
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 6 of 15 Digitally signed by PADMAPADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30 16:54:02 +0530
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money 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; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "debt of other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
12. The essential ingredients in order to attract Sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881 are:
i) Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharge of said debt or liability;
(ii) Dishonor of cheque in dispute which must have been drawn on an account maintained by the accused;
(iii) Service of legal demand notice seeking payment of cheque amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of return memo;
(iv) Non-payment of cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of service of notice; and
(v) Filing of complaint within one month from the date on which cause of action arises.
13. Now, coming to the facts of the case in hand in the light of above mentioned legal principles. In the instant case, the issuance of the cheque in dispute [Ex. CW- 1/A] by the accused, its presentation in the bank for encashment and subsequent dishonour due to the reason "funds insufficient", is not disputed and is a matter of record, as proved by the return memos [Ex. CW-1/B and Ex. CW-1/C]. It is also established that the cheque in dispute belongs to the accused and even the signature CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed PADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2023.05.30 16:54:07 +0530 on the same is admittedly of the accused. Once these facts are established, a presumption of the cheque having been issued in discharge of a legally existing liability and drawn for good consideration arises by virtue of Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Once Section 139 of the NI Act comes into picture, the Court presumes that the cheque was issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. At this stage, with the help of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the case of the complainant stands proved.
14. Since the presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118(a) of the NI Act is in favour of the complainant, it is now for the accused to rebut the same either by discrediting the veracity of material relied upon by the complainant or by leading positive evidence to probabilise his defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities as provided by the three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 and also in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2019) 18 SCC 106.
15. It is trite law that for rebuttal of the said presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118(a) of NI Act, accused need not even step into the witness box as he can rebut the same by placing reliance on the material brought on record by the complainant or even by raising presumptions of fact and law on the basis of material available on record. The accused has to make out a fairly plausible defence which is acceptable to the Court. Therefore, the standard of proof required from the accused to prove his defence is "preponderance of probabilities" and not beyond reasonable doubts. However, at the same time, it is also to be remembered that bare denial of the existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability cannot be said to be sufficient to rebut the presumption and something which is probable has to be brought on record to shift the burden back to the complainant.
The statutory presumption u/s. 118(a) NI Act reads as under:
CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 8 of 15 Digitally signed by PADMAPADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30 16:54:12 +0530 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. --Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) of consideration --that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration The statutory presumption u/s. 139 NI Act reads as under:
39. Presumption in favour of holder. --It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, 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.
16. Keeping these basic principles in mind, this Court shall now proceed to deal with the various defences taken by the accused and examine whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption arising in favour of the complainant:
I. Defence of non-existence of any liability:
The first and foremost defence taken by the accused is that he did not take any loan from the complainant and the cheque in dispute was not given in discharge of liability towards any loan, hence, he owes no liability towards the cheque in dispute. There is no gainsaying that a person cannot be expected to prove a negative fact by adducing positive evidence. However, in such cases, in order to rebut the presumptions raised against the accused under Sec. 139 r/w 118 NI Act, he is expected to raise a probable defence either by showing a circumstance under which advancement of loan in question does not seem probable to a reasonable mind or by casting a shadow of doubt on the case of complainant. In the instant case, with regards to handing over of cheque in dispute, accused has continuously modified his statement over the period of time. Initially, in his plea of defence u/s. 251 Cr.PC, accused has stated that he had given the cheque to a person whose name is unknown to him as he had promised to CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 9 of 15 Digitally signed PADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2023.05.30 16:54:29 +0530 assist him in availing a loan from Bank of India. That he does not know how the cheque in dispute came in the hands of the complainant. Then in statement under Sec. 313 CrPC, accused has stated that he had given the cheque in dispute to one Deepak Kumar, a relative of complainant for securing a loan. At last, during his examination-
in-chief, accused stated that the complainant had taken the cheque in dispute along with another cheque as complainant had promised to arrange a loan from some bank. In his cross-examination, accused has stated that complainant had promised to secure a loan through his friend, Deepak Kumar. He has further stated in his cross- examination that he never met Deepak. It is to be noted that in statement u/s. 313 CrPC accused has stated that he gave the cheque in dispute to Deepak as he had promised to secure a loan for him and there is no mention of complainant, however during his examination-in-chief, accused gave a contradictory statement to the effect that he handed over the cheque in dispute to the complainant and it was complainant who had promised to secure a loan through his friend, Deepak Kumar. It is also to be noted that during cross-examination, accused has also deposed that he never met Deepak, however, it was Deepak to whom he handed over the cheque in dispute as per his own statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC. At one point, he says he gave the cheque in dispute to Deepak and at another point, he says he handed over the same to complainant and has never met Deepak. Hence, the stand and deposition of accused suffers from major contradictions and the defence per se appears to be fallacious. He has failed to establish to whom he had given the cheque in dispute and further, no document of any sort has been produced to show that cheque in dispute was given to secure a loan from a bank. Also, no witness has been examined to establish the said fact. The defence of accused is only a bald averment not supported by any evidence, whatsoever, rather the defence itself suffers from major inconsistencies as already seen, hence, the defence that cheque in dispute was given for securing a bank loan is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accused has further taken a defence that he is liable to pay only Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant towards a chit fund committee and no liability is CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL Date:
LANDOL 2023.05.30 16:54:34 +0530 existing towards any loan. However, this is again a bald averment as accused has not taken any steps to prove the same. It was incumbent upon the accused to examine a witness or otherwise establish that the transaction between the parties herein was related to a chit fund committee only and there was absolutely no transaction/talks for loan in question, however, no steps have been taken in that direction. Accused could have shown a circumstance, may be by filing his bank statements to establish that he was not in need of any loan, hence he could not have taken the loan in question from complainant. However, he has failed to take any such step. Further, it is also not the case that complainant is not known to the accused, rather admittedly complainant is known to him since the last 10 years. Furthermore, accused could have refuted the allegations and stated his defence by way of a reply to the legal demand notice of the complainant, however, despite receiving the demand notice, accused did not reply to the same. Hence, the accused has miserably failed to raise a probable defence to the effect that the transaction with the complainant was with respect to a chit fund committee only and not beyond.
II. Defence of misuse of cheque in dispute:
In his plea of defence during framing of notice u/s. 251 Cr.PC, accused has admitted only his signature on the cheque in dispute and has denied his handwriting of the other particulars on the cheque. During the cross-examination of the complainant, it has been suggested that the complainant has filled the cheque in dispute as accused is an illiterate person. Hence, the complainant has misused the cheque in dispute. This argument of the accused is again devoid of merits since it is trite law that once a signed cheque is handed over to a person, the authority to fill up the remaining particulars and use the cheque also stands transferred to the holder. In this context, the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Goyal v. State & Anr. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8887 is relevant wherein it was held that-
'there is no law that a person drawing the cheque must necessarily fill it up on his own hand writing and once the signatures on the cheque are CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 11 of 15 Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL Date:
LANDOL 2023.05.30 16:54:39 +0530 admitted, the liability arising therefrom cannot be evaded on the specious plea that the contents were not filled up by the drawer of the cheque', bears relevance.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 has also held that-
"34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
Furthermore, Section 20 of the NI Act, 1881 also gives holder of a negotiable instrument authority to fill the same. Same reads as under:
Section 20: Inchoate stamped instruments:
Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount:
Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument any thing in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.
Hence, this defence of the accused is also liable to be dismissed.
III. Attempt to pick holes in the case of complainant:
i) Ld. Counsel for accused has tried to pick holes in the case of the complainant by contending that the Complainant admittedly does not know the name of the person to whom he handed over the loan in question, hence the loan transaction itself is unbelievable. In this regard, the complainant has deposed during his cross-CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 12 of 15 Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2023.05.30 16:54:48 +0530 examination that, "...That I have not given the said amount to the accused directly instead on his direction I had given the amount to a person whose name is not known to me. The person who took the money from me is also running a business of tent...". Admittedly complainant did not know the name of the person to whom he handed over the loan amount, however, this fact in itself is not that a major flaw which will go to the roots of the complainant's case, specially when there is not a whisper of denial of fact that accused had directed any such person to collect the loan amount from the complainant. Further, handing over of money to a third person at the instructions of a borrower is not unnatural or an unbelievable fact. Moreover, in the present case, issuance of cheque with signature is an admitted fact and the accused could not raise any probable defence as to why he issued the cheque in dispute at the first place. Hence, this argument of the accused is also liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
ii) Ld. Counsel for accused has further contended that complainant has not filed any bank statement to show the availability of loan amount. During the cross- examination, the complainant has deposed that he had sold a piece of land at Bahadurgarh 5-6 years ago for Rs. 12 Lakhs and therefore, he had cash available with him. However, Ld. Counsel for accused has not raised any contrary suggestion at any stage of trial. Further, not a single question was raised at any stage of trial on the aspect of the financial capability of the complainant to advance the loan in question. This only goes to show that the accused had no doubt on the financial capability of the complainant to advance the loan in question of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Further, complainant is stated to be a driver by profession and the loan in question is not a very high amount that a driver could not have afforded the same. In view of the same, this argument of accused also holds no water and is liable to be dismissed.
iii) Ld. Counsel for accused has further contended that complainant has not examined any witness or has filed any receipts to prove the loan transaction in question. Complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that he knows accused for last 15 CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 13 of 15 Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30 16:54:53 +0530 years as he is a neighbour. There was no talks regarding any interest on the loan amount, no security against the loan was taken from the accused and that he did not take any receipt of the loan either from the accused or the person to whom he handed over the money. In the considered opinion of the court, non-furnishing of receipts per se does not have any bearing on the case of the complainant since the loan in question was stated to be given in the nature of friendly loan. Furthermore, accused has not furnished even a single cogent evidence in favour of his defence. In such a scenario, non-furnishing of receipts or non-examination of any witness per se will not go to the roots of the complainant's case.
17. It is a settled law that though the degree of burden on the accused to rebut the presumption is only to the extent of preponderance of probability, however, in order to cross this threshold accused has to take some steps which is more that mere averments, however, this has not been done in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel (supra) and in various other rulings have time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. In the case at hand, keeping all the aspects in view, the defence put forth by the accused and rebuttal of presumption raised against him is only a mere denial when tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Further, it has been held in Rajesh Agarwal v. State 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2511 that:
"9. .....There is no presumption that even if an accused fails to bring out his defence, he is still to be considered innocent. If an accused has a defence against dishonour of the cheque in question, it is he alone who knows the defence and responsibility of spelling out this defence to the court and then proving this defences is on the accused....."CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 14 of 15 Digitally signed by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2023.05.30 16:54:57 +0530
18. In the light of the foregoing discussions, this court is of the firm opinion that the accused has not led any cogent evidence to rebut presumptions under Sec. 118 and 139 of NI Act. There is nothing coming out either in the cross examination of CW-1 or in Defence evidence which would probabilize the defence raised by the accused or falsify the case of the complainant, in fact as already discussed the defence of the accused is highly improbable and is not in the nature of compelling rebuttable evidence. In the above view, the complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in dispute in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability. This Court has no hesitation in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant has brought home his case proving the complicity of the accused in the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the accused Rajinder Kumar is thus, held guilty and stands convicted for the said offence.
Announced in Open Court today on 30.05.2023.
Digitally signedPADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2023.05.30 16:55:22 +0530 (PADMA LANDOL) MM (NI Act) Digital Court-03 New Delhi, PHC/Delhi/ 30.05.2023 Certified that this judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signedPADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2023.05.30 16:55:29 +0530 (PADMA LANDOL) MM (NI Act) Digital Court-03 New Delhi, PHC/Delhi/ 30.05.2023 CC NO. 2474/2021 SHAMSHER SINGH v. RAJENDER KUMAR Page 15 of 15