Delhi District Court
Anita Kumari vs Rupesh Singh on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV UJJWAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS/NI ACT-01/WEST/TIS
HAZARI COURT/DELHI
C.T. Cases no. 1563/2020
CNR No. DLWT020032522020
Ms. Anita Kumari,
being the proprietor of M/s. Mark Tools,
through her Special Power of Attorney
Sh. Manoj Kumar
Having Office at L-70, Sector 1,
DSIIDC Industrial Area,
Bawana, Delhi-110039 .........Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Rupesh Singh,
being proprietor of M/s. Suhani Industries
R/o Khasra no.13/9/2, Mandir Mohalla,
Village Samaypur, Delhi-110042 ............Accused
::J U D G M E N T::
Date of institution of case : 26.02.2020 Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 1/15 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:20:24 +0530 Date of reserving the judgment : 31.10.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.12.2025 Offence complained or proved : 138 N.I. Act Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty" Final Order : Conviction Date of Final Order : 22.12.2025 BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has arisen out of a complaint filed under section 138 r/w Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act , 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) by one Ms. Anita Kumari, being the proprietor of M/s. Mark Tools, through her SPA Sh. Manoj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant') for dishonor of two cheques i.e. cheque bearing number 932409 dt. 15.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.37,524/- and cheque bearing number 932413 dt. 25.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.71,800/-, both drawn on Indian bank, Plot 9, Pocket B, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi branch, (hereinafter referred to as 'the cheques in question') issued by one Sh. Rupesh Singh, being the proprietor of M/s. Suhani Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') in favor of the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Die and Job Work of CMS/VMC/WC under the name and style of M/s. Mark Tool, which is a proprietorship concerned. It is further the case of complainant that as per orders of accused, Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 2/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:29 +0530 complainant supplied the "cooler front body die" vide bill/tax invoices dt. 30.09.2019 amounting to Rs.71,800/- and supplied "Cooler Side Body Cover Die" vide bill/tax invoice dt. 01.10.2019 amounting to Rs.37,524/-
which were duly acknowledged by the accused. It is further the case of complainant that in order to discharge the aforementioned liability, accused, being proprietor of M/s. Suhani Industries issued the aforesaid cheques in question. Thereafter, when complainant present the cheque bearing no.932409 for encashment, same got dishonoured with remarks "funds insufficient" vide return memo dt. 19.10.2019 and when complainant told accused about the same, accused apologized and further requested to represent the same again in the last week of October, 2019. When the aforesaid cheque was again presented, same again got dishonoured for the same reasons vide return memo dt. 30.10.2019 and again requested for presenting the same in second week of December, 2019, which was again returned dishonoured vide return memo dt. 13.12.2019 with the same remarks "funds insufficient". Thereafter complainant also present the second cheque i.e. cheque bearing no.932413 dt. 25.11.2019 for encashment, but the cheque came to be dishonored upon presentation through the return memo dated 17.12.2019 with the remarks as 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter complainant again contacted the accused and told about the dishnour, to which he requested that the cheque be presented within a week and assured that same shall be honoured on its presentation this time. With assurance from accused, complainant again presented the cheque, which again came to be dishonoured vide return memo dt. 26.12.2019. When accused was again contacted for repayment but later on accused refused to repay the same. Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal demand notice dated 11.01.2020 Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 3/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:33 +0530 under section 138(b) NI Act. The present complaint came to be filed by the complainant when the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheques despite receipt of the legal demand notice.
3. The court, on finding a prima facie case against the accused, issued process against him and summoned him before the court on 26.02.2020.
COMPLAINANT`S EVIDENCE
4. The SPA of complainant Sh. Manoj Kumar examined himself as CW-1 on 26.02.2020 and tendered his evidence on affidavit which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/A. He also placed reliance on the following documents: -
(a) Ex. CW1/1 is the Original SPA executed by complainant in favour of Sh. Manoj Kumar.
(b) Ex. CW1/2 is the GST Registration Certificate of complainant firm.
(c) Ex. CW1/3 (OSR) and Ex.CW1/4(OSR) are the two bills/tax invoice dt. 01.10.2019 and 30.09.2019.
(d) Ex. CW1/5 and Ex.CW1/6 are the cheques in question.
(e) Ex. CW1/7 to Ex.CW1/11 are the return memos.
(f) Ex. CW1/12 is the legal demand notice dt. 11.01.2020.
(g) Ex. CW-1/13 (Colly) is the postal receipts and tracking report.
Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 4/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:36 +0530
(h) Ex. CW1/14 is the GST details of accused firm.
PLEA OF DEFENCE
5. The defense of the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. was recorded, after serving upon him the substance of accusation on 16.11.2022 wherein the accused, while pleading not guilty, explained his defence by stating that he stated that he had given a duty to complainant to furnish dye and in compliance of that he had given blank signed cheques to the complainant but he was provided rejected dyes by the complainant. He admitted the signatures on the cheques in question but denied filling up other particulars. He denied receiving the legal demand notice but admitted that the address mentioned on the legal notice is his correct address.
6. This court had allowed the application u/s.145(2) NI Act made by the accused to cross-examine the complainant on 26.11.2022. The complainant thereafter adopted his pre-summoning evidence as post summoning evidence and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/14. CW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, which shall be discussed late in his judgment.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. The Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 5/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:39 +0530 09.11.2023 wherein he admitted his signatures on the cheques in question Ex.CW1/5 and Ex.CW1/6 but denied filling other particulars upon the same.
He further denied receiving legal demand notice but admitted that address upon the same was his correct address. He further stated that he had no legal liabilities towards the complainant as alleged by him. He further stated that he had given Rs.25,000/- cash alongwith material to the complainant as advance to prepare dye for him. He further stated that at the time when the complainant supplied due to him, he have two signed cheques to the complainant and told the complainant that he would try the dye and if same was found to be as per standards, complainant may present the cheques before the bank. However, the dye was not found to be of quality and he intimated the complainant about the same, however complainant presented the cheques in question. He further stated that he does not owe the cheques amount to the complainant and complainant has misused the cheques.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. The accused examined himself as DW-1 under section 315 Cr.P.C on 22.01.2024, he was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Thereafter, accused also examined his brother Sh. Ranbahdur Singh as DW-2 on15.02.2025, who was also duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Subsequently, the case was put up for final arguments.
Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 6/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:43 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Sh. Sankar Tanwar, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has been able to prove all the pre-requisites of Section 138 NI Act against the accused and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
Ld. Counsel has also sought time to file written submissions but no such submission has been filed till date.
10. Per contra, Sh. B.P. Pradhan, Ld. Counsel for the accused has not lead oral submissions rather has placed written submissions on record, through which Ld. Counsel has argued that the legal demand notice has not been served upon the accused.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
11. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first. It is well settled position of law that to constitute an offence under S.138 N.I. Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) That the cheque in question has been drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 7/15 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:20:46 +0530 person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability.
(ii) That the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (now three months) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
(iii) That the cheque was returned dishonoured by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds or the same exceeded any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque.
(iv) That the complainant gave 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 demanding payment of the cheque amount.
(v) Lastly that the accused failed to make payment to the payee (the complainant), or the holder in due course, the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
12. It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be said to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
13. There is no dispute with regard to ingredient no. (ii) and (iii) as the accused has not questioned the same. Further presumption in favour of complainant has to be drawn in terms of Sec-146 NI Act. Ingredient no. (v) is also satisfied as the accused has denied having any outstanding liability Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 8/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:49 +0530 towards complainant, therefore question of payment after reciept of legal demand notice by the accused does not arise.
14. Accused has denied the reciept of legal demand notice, but has admitted the address on it to be correct in both his statement u/s- 251 Cr.pc. dt. 16.11.2022 and u/s- 313 Cr.pc. dt. 09.11.2023. . The burden to prove that he had not received the legal notice was on the accused. Section 103 I.E.A. lays down the rule that the burden of proving a particular fact is on the person who asserts that fact. Since the accused admitted that the address on the legal notice was correct, there was limited scope for him to prove that the legal notice was not served upon him. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act establishes a presumption of service with respect to letters or documents sent through post and states: "...the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying, and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." There has been no dispute regarding the complainant sending the legal demand notice to the accused via prepaid registered post. The accused has also acknowledged that his address on the legal demand notice was correct. Therefore, the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies in this case, and it can be assumed that the legal demand notice was served upon the accused in the ordinary course of business, accordingly ingredient no. (iv) is satisfied.
Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 9/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:20:53 +0530 POINTS OF DETERMINATION
(A). Whether the complainant has successfully proven the facts which would raise the presumption u/s. 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act by proving that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused?
(B). Whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence or in another words, whether he had been able to prove that the cheques were not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or any other liability?
REASONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT
15. It is settled law that once the signature upon the cheques in question has been admitted by the accused, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act, which lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
16. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 10/15 GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:20:56 +0530 "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16'.
17. In the present case, the accused at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 and statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. Once signatures are admitted, the presumption under section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act has to be raised in favour of the complainant in the present case.
18. Accordingly, the point of determination number A is decided in the affirmative.
Points of determination number (B):
19. Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983', noted at para 23:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 11/15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2025.12.22 16:20:59 +0530
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
20. Let us discuss the factual matrix of the present case. The accused in his plea of defence recorded on 16.11.2022 has stated that he had given a duty to complainant to furnish dye and in compliance of that he had given blank signed cheques to the complainant but he was provided rejected dyes by the complainant. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C he stated that he had given Rs.25,000/- cash alongwith material to the complainant as advance to prepare dye for him. He further stated that at the time when the complainant supplied dye to him, he have two signed cheques to the complainant and told the complainant that he would try the dye and if same was found to be as per Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 12/15 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:21:04 +0530 standards, complainant may present the cheques before the bank. However, the dye was not found to be of quality and he intimated the complainant about the same, however complainant presented the cheques in question.
21. This is contrary to the statement given by accused in his examination- in-chief dt. 22.01.2024, wherein accused has stated that he had given Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith two blank cheques. He reiterated that it was agreed that between him and the complainant that the cheques in question could be presented in bank only if the dyes are proper, no such suggestion has been put to CW-1 during his cross-examination dt. 23.02.2023, further the accused has failed to prove any such agreement between the parties. The suggestion put to CW-1 with regard to objections being raised by accused towards quality of dye was duly denied. Further, the accused in his cross-examination dt. 27.03.2024 has admitted the delivery of goods by the complainant and has also admitted that he has not filed any case or complainant or issue any notice to complainant with regard to alleged defective dye.
22. Accused in his examination in chief has stated that he has intimated the complainant verbally about the non functioning of the dye and has also requested for the return of cheques. Said statement is not supported with any evidence. Further, accused has admitted not lodging any complaint till date against the complainant for misuse of cheques as alleged by the him.
Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 13/15 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:21:07 +0530
23. Accused has also examined his brother as DW-2 dt. 15.02.2025 wherein he stated that SPA of complainant was called to the factory and was showed the rejected material, but no witness to this has been cited by him, even the accused has not stated any such fact. DW-2 states that he has handed over Rs.20,000/- in cash and the cheques in question to the complainant, whereas the accused states that the said cash and cheques are handed over by him, thus there are contradictions in the statements of defence witnesses. DW-2 has also admitted that no case or complainant has been filed nor any notice issued to complainant with regard to alleged defective dye.
24. Based on the above discussion it can be said that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him by presenting any probable defence through cross-examination of complainant or by leading any defence evidences.
25. It is trite law that when the accused has failed to rebut the presump- tion under section 139 NI Act, the court can proceed to convict the accused. reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court in 'Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148', which discusses the correct approach in dealing with presumption under Section 139 ob- served as under; relevant extracts are reproduced hereunder:
"54. ...Once the presumption under Section 139 was given Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 14/15 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:21:11 +0530 effect to, the courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138...."
CONCLUSION
26. Accordingly, this Court finds the accused Sh. Rupesh Singh, S/o Sh. Kaushal Singh, being the proprietor of M/s. Suhani Industries guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act and accordingly he is convicted of the said offence.
27. This judgement contains 15 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned as per rules. Let the copy of digitally signed judgment be uploaded on the website of Tis Hazari District Court as per rules.
GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV UJJWAL Announced in open Court on 22nd Day of December, 2025 UJJWAL Date: 2025.12.22 16:21:15 +0530 GAURAV UJJWAL JMFC (NI ACT-01) WEST/THC Ct. Cases No. 1563/2020 Anita Kumari vs. Rupesh Singh Pg. no. 15/15