Delhi District Court
Manu Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Lavi Yadav Contractor And Supplier And ... on 15 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SACHIN JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-03, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
M/s Manu Electricals Pvt. Ltd
Through its director Sh Jagvir Singh Solanki
At- 42A, Pkt-B, SFS DDA Flat, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-III, at also office B-655, G.D. Colony,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096
............... Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s Lavi Yadav Contractor & Suppliers
Through,
2. Lavi Yadav Proprietor.
M/s Lavi Yadav Contractor & Suppliers
at Village-Jaswantpur, PO Sagauni,
Mainpuri Sector-1, District Mainpuri,
U.P.-205001
................ Accused
JUDGMENT
Complainant Case No. : 3187/2019 Police Station : Ghazipur Date of institution : 14.08.2019 Offence alleged : Under Section 138 NI Act Plea of the accused : Not pleaded guilty Final order : Convicted Date of Decision : 15.09.2025.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
01. The complainant company has instituted this complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') against accused Sh. Lavi Yadav, Proprietor of M/S Lavi Yadav Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 1 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:08:12 +0530 Contractor & Suppliers, on 14.08.2019.
02. The brief facts of the present case discernible from the complainant are that the accused received a work order for Rural electrification work and electrical work for RGGVY 12 th Plant at Distt. Mainpuri, Block Mainpuri, UP from the complainant. The complainant has issued a work order for Rural Electrification work and electrical work as per following terms and conditions to the accused persons :-
1) Installation testing commissioning and hand over of elec trified area (cluster wise)
2) All material loading, unloading, shifting including receiv ing from the complainant's store.
3) Verifying quantity survey and preparing procurement BOQ (cluster wise)
4) Rectification of all survey drawings
5) Preparation of all as built drawings after execution
6) Reconciliation of issued material.
03. It is further the case of the complainant that the accused did not complete the work as per above said terms and conditions. It is further stated that electrification and electrical goods/material of the complainant is under the custody of the accused and excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for aforesaid work was inadvertently paid to the accused by the complainant and thereafter the matter was orally settled between the parties and accused agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant in the presence of witnesses namely Vijay Kumar Pandey. It is further the case of the complainant that for clearing his liability the accused Lavi Yadav as a owner/proprietor of M/s Lavi Yadav Contractor and suppliers, issued one cheque bearing no. 000021 dated 28.06.2019 for the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India account no. 77001010007960 in Mainpuri Branch, Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:08:20 +0530 Krishna Talkies Road Mainpuri, IFSC BKID0007700 in favour of the complainant company. The aforesaid cheuqe was presented by the complainant to his Bank for encashment namely bank of Maharashtra, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096 within the period of validity and the said cheque was returned as unpaid to the bank of the complainant as remarks 'funds insufficient' and the said cheque was returned to the complainant by his bank with return memo dated 05.07.2019. After that complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 19.07.2019 by his counsel through speed post dated 26.07.2019 at the address of the accused. The notice was duly served upon the accused but accused neither replied to the legal notice nor paid the aforesaid amount to the complainant. Hence the present complaint was filed for the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 read with section U/s 420 IPC was filed against the accused by the complainant.
04. On receipt of the present complaint by way of assignment, complainant was examined. With a view to establish a prima facie case in order to enable the court to summon the accused, complainant company led pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit of AR of the complainant i.e. Ex CW1 (colly). AR of the complainant only proceeded under Section 138 NI Act and not under Section 420 IPC regarding which his statement was recorded on 14.08.2019. The complainant relied upon following documentary evidence:
(a) Original cheque dated 28.06.2019, bearing no 000021 of Rs. 5 lakhs as Ex. CW1/A.
(b) copy of returning memo dated 05.07.2019 as Ex. CW1/B,
(c) Copy of Legal demand notice dated 19.07.2019. as Ex. CW1/C.
(d) Original Postal receipt dated 26.07.2019 as Ex. CW 1/D (colly)
(e) Photocopy of adhar card as Ex. CW1/E (OSR) and copy of visiting card as Ex.CW1/F (OSR).
Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:08:27 +0530
(f) Original certified true copy of the resolution passed in the board dated 15.04.2019 as Ex. CW1/G.
(g) Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Pandey, CW2 i.e. Ex.PW2/1.
05. After the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant, the accused was summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under section 138 NI Act by the Learned Predecessor Court vide order on summoning dated 14.08.2019.
06. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused on 24.06.2022, stating out to him the substance of accusation, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. His defence was recorded at the stage of framing of notice, wherein the accused took defence that the cheque in question bears his signature but he had given the blank signed cheque to the complainant. He further stated that he received the legal demand notice. He further stated that he was assigned the work of construction by the company in the nature of his business, as small contractor for electrification work in the village. In lieu of said work, he gave blank signed cheque as a security. However, while the said work was under progress, he raised the demand for payment for proceeding further in the construction. After the demand, the complainant assigned the work to another contractor and did not return his cheque in question. Complainant filed the present case on the basis of said cheque. Accused further stated that he did not owe any amount to the complainant instead the complainant company owes him the amount for work done by him.
07. Accused was granted right for cross-examination of the complainant witnesses and the AR of the complainant was recalled for cross-examination u/s. 145(2) NI Act on 01.09.2022, and he was cross Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:08:35 +0530 examined as CW1 and was discharged. Further, accused also cross examined the CW2 on 22.12.2022.
08. Statement of accused Lavi Yadav was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 25.05.2023, wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to him and he was granted an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him at trial. While explaining the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, accused stated without oath that he had given the blank signed cheque in question to the complainant in 2016 for the purpose of security. He further stated that he had undertaken construction work of rural electrification from the complainant company. It was agreed that out of the total amount of work, 60% was to be paid as per the work done on a timely basis and remaining 40% was to be paid after completion of the work. Accused further stated that he did the work for Rs. 9,14,883/- and said amount was payable to him by the complainant, however, the complainant only paid Rs. 5,03,488/- to him. Accused further stated that he had given the blank signed cheque to the complainant at the time of work order in the year 2016 for the purpose of security as he was told by the complainant that cancelled cheques are required. Later on, during the period of work, he went to the complainant with a bill of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, which was due to him for the work done. However the complainant did not clear his bills and handed over the work to another contractor without his knowledge and then filed this false case against him. Accused chose to lead DE in his favour and examined Sh Mangli Yadav as DW1, Sh Sonu as DW-2 and accused examined himself as DW-3.
Defence Evidence in brief:-
09. DW-1 Sh Mangli Yadav stated that he knows the accused as they belong to same village. He further stated he used to work with complainant company since 2016 to 2017. Accused had given a blank signed cheque to the complainant company in the year 2016 in Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 5 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:08:42 +0530 his presence for the purpose of security. Accused had handed over the cheque in question to Sh. Rajender, Store Incharge of complainant company. Accused had completed all the work of laying down the electrical wires of complainant company. The complainant company had handed over the abovesaid work to another company without any information of the accused and complainant has the financial liability of about Rs. 4,50,000/- towards the accused and accused has asked many times regarding the return of the said money from the complainant but complainant company did not return the same. He further stated that complainant did not show the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which company had to pay to the accused in its balance sheet. Accused had not taken the goods of the complainant in his possession. No settlement took place between the complainant company and the accused. The cheque in question given to the complainant was not returned by the complainant to the accused.
9.a. In the cross examination, DW-1 stated that he used to supply raw material to the accused at the site. He used to work under the supervision of the accused. He admitted that the raw material of the project was given to the accused by the complainant company and the raw material used to keep in the custody of the accused. He also admitted that the left over work of accused has been completed by the complainant company itself. He has no knowledge whether accused had taken any legal action against the complainant company regarding the due amount. He further stated that accused had not discussed about the cheque in question from the complainant in his presence. He was not present at the time when the accused had taken the contract from the complainant company and he was not aware about the terms and conditions of the contract. He admitted that raw material of construction of work of rural electrification was handed over to the accused Lavi Yadav. Accused Lavi Yadav worked around 2 years from Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 6 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:08:54 +0530 Jhansi to Mainpuri. He denied the suggestion that he has no personal knowledge of the present case or that he is deposing falsely in favour of accused being his friend.
10. DW-2 is Sonu, he stated that he was the employee of the accused company from 2016 to 2018. He had not worked with complainant company. Accused had given the cheque in question in favour of the complainant company in the year 2016 for the security purpose in front of him. The said cheque was handed over to Sh. Rajender Srivastava, Store Inchare. Accused had completed the full work of the complainant company. After completion of the work, accused used to return back remaining goods in the store of the complainant company. Accused Lavi Yadav had outstanding amount of Rs. 4-4.50,000/- towards the complainant for work done. However, despite several requests, complainant company had not returned the said amount to the accused.
There was no mutual or written agreement between the accused and the complainant regarding the money transactions between them. Accused never kept the goods of complainant company with him. The complainant company used to work of pole installation and wiring.
10.a. In the cross-examination, he stated that he used to work as labour in the accused company. He is 8 th class pass. He currently working as a labour with the accused. He has been working with accused since around Holi of the year 2016. He knows the accused since he started working with him. He was not present when the accused took the construction work of rural electrification. Accused had completed the given work of complainant company. He did not know the cheque number given to the complainant company by the accused. He could not tell the exact date on which the cheque was handed over to Sh. Rajender Srivastava. The cheque was given in the Manpuri. He did not know whether the accused had filed the case against the complainant company or filed any complaint to the police or took other Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:01 +0530 legal action regarding the outstanding money towards the complainant company. He did not have any knowledge whether the accused replied to the legal notice given by the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused.
11. DW-3 is Lavi Yadav, i.e. accused. He stated that he had worked with Manu Electricals since 2016 and he had taken the contract of company then he received a work order. It was agreed out of the total amount to be paid to him for work done, 60% of the same was to be paid on the timely basis and 40% was to be paid after completion of work. He had completed the work as per work order and he had done the work of approximately 9.50 lakhs. He had also done extra work of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the company for which he was not paid and it was not included in his work. He had given a blank signed cheques to the complainant company in 2016 as a security purpose. He had handed over the cheque to Sh Rajender Shrivastava store Incharge of the company. He has remaining amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the said company and his total remaining amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- due on the company. However, despite several requests, complainant company had not paid the said amount to the accused. The blank cheque issued to the company in the presence of Sonu Yadav and Mangali Yadav for security purpose.
11.a. In the cross examination, DW-3 has stated that he is 9 th class pass. He is doing the electric work and he had taken the construction work of rural electrification on contract from the complainant. He had experience of 4-5 years at the time of taking the contract of the said project work. He had completed the project in two years. He denied the suggestion that he had not completed the above said project work. He admitted that he stated in his statement of accused recorded on 25.05.2023 in the last para of last line "handed over the work to another contractor without his knowledge". He had Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:08 +0530 not received NOC from the complainant company nor he had asked the same from the company. He denied the suggest that he has not demanded the NOC from the complainant company because he had never completed the work of the above said project. He admitted that he had received the legal notice sent by the complainant company and he had not replied to the said legal notice. He further admitted that he had not filed any civil, criminal and recovery suit against the complainant company. He further stated the had never sent demand notice to the company regarding due amount. He did not know about the number of the security cheque. He admitted that he neither gavew any police complaint nor taken any legal action against the complainant company regarding security cheque. DW3 further admitted that he had not given any written notice to the complainant after the cheque bounce. He admitted the cheque in question bears his signature and the cheque in question bears his current bank account number. DW3 denied the suggestion that he had taken the costly electrical goods and excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he further denied the suggestion that he had not completed the project work.
ARGUMENTS:-
12. After the examination of witnesses and recording the statement of accused, final arguments have been heard from Sh Ravendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sh Satyaveer Sharma and Sh. Anil Sharma, learned counsels for the accused.
13. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has successfully proved its case against the accused and there is presumption in favour of the complainant as accused has admitted taking work contract from the complainant. He further stated that the accused and DW1 admitted that the leftover work as per work order was completed by the complainant company itself. DW1 further Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:17 +0530 admitted that the raw materials of the complainant company used to be kept in the custody of the accused. Accused further admitted the issuance of cheque in question to the complainant. He further argued that the accused had admitted the receiving of Legal Demand notice but he failed to reply the legal demand notice. Hence the accused deserves to be held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 138 NI Act as the cheque was issued by accused in discharge of his legal liability.
14. Learned Counsel for the accused has on the other hand, advanced following arguments in defence of the accused that:-
1) That the accused has completed the work of electrification as per work order.
2) The cheque in question was issued as security in 2016 and the same was misused by the complainant company.
3) The complainant company had not paid the due amount to the accused.
4) The raw material of the construction was not kept in the custody of the accused.
15. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire evidence led by the parties.
RELEVANT LAW:-
16. It would be apposite to first consider the legal position serving as base to the offence underlying Section 138 NI Act. The following legal requirements need to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence u/s 138 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 Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:25 +0530 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 (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 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 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 there turn 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;
17. The above legal requirements are cumulative, meaning thereby that only if all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied can the person who had drawn the cheque be held liable for offence u/s 138 NI Act.
BURDEN OF PROOF:-
18. 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 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. In case, if the accused is not able to rebut the presumption and fails to prove his Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:32 +0530 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 consequently, accused is assumed guilty of the offence. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa v. Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441) that presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act also includes the existence of legally enforceable debt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001 (6) SCC 16) held that the presumption mentioned in the section 139 NI Act is a presumption of law and not a presumption of fact and thus, this presumption has to be drawn in favour of the drawee and the burden to rebut the presumption with the probable defence is on the accused.
19. This is indeed an instance of the rule of 'reverse onus', where it is incumbent on the accused to lead what can be called 'negative evidence' i.e. to lead evidence to show nonexistence of liability. Keeping in view that this is a departure from the cardinal rule of 'presumption of innocence' in favour of the accused and that negative evidence is not easy to be led by its very nature, it is now settled that the accused can displace this presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities and the lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt need not be proved to the hilt or beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused can either prove that the liability did not exist or make the non- existence of liability so probable that a reasonable person, ought under the circumstances of the case, act on the supposition that it does not exist. He can do so either by leading own evidence in his defence or even by punching holes in the case of the complainant in the testing ordeal of cross examination. This can be deciphered from relevant para no. 21 of Hiten P. Dalal (supra):
"21. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the Court but to Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 12 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:40 +0530 draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, 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'."
20. Further, in Bharat Barrel v. Drum Manufacturing AIR 1999 SC 1008 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accused has to rebut the presumption and mere denial of passing of consideration is no defence. It is, thus, clear that in cases of Section 138 NI Act, upon proof of foundational facts, law presumes in favour of drawee that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge, wholly or in part, of legally enforceable debt or liability and the burden to rebut the same is upon the accused. The burden does not have to be conclusively established but the accused has to prove his defence on preponderance of probability.
20.a. Further in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4SCC 197, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 20 NI Act talks about incohate instruments. As per this provision, if a person gives a duly signed cheque which is either blank or partly filled then he is deemed to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particulars in it and complete the cheque. Thus, making the drawer liable for the payment mentioned in it. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:48 +0530 provision of 138 NI Act would be attracted.
DECISION ALONGWITH REASONS:-
21. Now applying the above law to the facts of the present case, it has to be adjudged whether the legal requirements laid down here-in- above have been fulfilled in the instant case.
22. The first legal requirement is 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. Thus, at the outset, it has to be proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question on his account maintained with a bank for discharge of any debt or other liability. In the instant case, accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question in notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The cheque in question has also been drawn on the account maintained by him with Bank of India. The said fact has not been denied by accused at any stage of proceeding. Thus, the accused having admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and the said cheque being drawn on his bank account, a mandatory presumption automatically arises in favour of complainant by virtue of Section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act that the cheque in question was issued by him in discharge of, whole or part of, legally enforceable debt or case liability.
23. Now, the burden shifts upon accused to rebut the above presumption by raising a probable defence, by leading evidence or bringing such facts on record in the cross-examination of the complainant that could make the latter's case improbable.
24. The accused preferred to discharge such burden by cross- examining the complainant witness and examining himself as DW3 and Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 14 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:09:56 +0530 further examined DW1 and DW2 as defence witnesses.
25. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for accused in defence of the accused are examined in the light of evidence led by the parties.
26. Firstly, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that he had completed the work as per work order and to prove this fact, accused examined himself as DW3 and DW1 and DW2 in his defence. During their examination in chief, all the DWs stated that the accused had completed the work order. Whereas the DW1 during his cross examination stated that "the leftover work of the accused was completed by the complainant company itself". Further, accused during his statement under Section 251 Cr.PC and 313 Cr.PC stated that "while the work was under progress he raised demand for the payment for proceeding further in the construction, on demand complainant assigned the work to another contractor". There is clear contradiction in the statement of accused and DWs regarding the claim of the accused that he had completed the work order. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, accused has not been able to raise any probable defence to discharge his onus by preponderance of probability that he completed the work order of electrification.
27. Second defence raised by the accused that he had given the blank signed cheque to Sh. Rajender Srivastav, Store In-charge of complainant company for the purpose of security and the same has been misused by the complainant company. Upon perusal of statement of DW1 and DW2, both stated in their examination in chief that accused gave the signed cheque to Sh. Rajender Srivastav, Store In- charge in 2016. Accused during his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, stated that he had given the "blank signed cheque" to the complainant at the time of receiving work order in the year 2016 for the purpose of Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:10:03 +0530 security as he was told by the complainant that cancelled cheques are required. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused mentioned that complainant has asked for the "cancelled cheques" whereas the cheque in question i.e. Ex. CW1/A is not a cancelled cheque. DW1 and DW2, both during their cross examination stated that they were not present at the time when the accused took work contract from the complainant company thereby contradicting the claim of the accused that the cheque in question was given as security at the time of receiving the work order.
28. Third defence raised by the accused that he had completed the work order and he had done the work of approx Rs.9,50,000/- and also extra work of Rs.1,50,000/- (total of Rs.11,00,000/-) and the remaining amount of Rs.5,75,000/- is due on the complainant company. Whereas during his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused stated that he did the work of Rs.9,14,883/- and additional work of Rs.1,50,000/- (total of Rs.10,64,883/-) and complainant paid Rs.5,03,448/-. As per the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC remaining amount to be paid by the complainant company is Rs. 5,61,435/-. Further, DW1 stated that complainant company has a financial liability of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards the accused and DW2 stated that complainant company has a outstanding liability of Rs.4-4.5 lakhs towards the accused. There is clear contradiction between the statement of the accused as DW3 and his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC and further variation in the statement of DW1 and DW2 regarding the amount due towards the complainant company. Further, accused during his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC and as DW3 stated that as per the work order, 60% has to be paid on timely basis and 40% was to be paid after the completion of work. It is already discussed that accused did not complete the work order thereby contradicting his claim regarding remaining amount to be paid by the complainant.
Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 16 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:10:11 +0530
29. Fourth defence raised by the accused that he never kept the raw material of the complainant company with him and after completion of work, he used to return the goods in the store of the complainant. Whereas, DW1 in his cross examination stated that he used to supply raw material to the accused at site and he used to work under the supervision of the accused. DW1 further stated that the raw material of the project was given to accused by complainant company and raw material was used to be kept in the custody of the accused. Thereby contradicting the claim of the accused that the raw material was not kept in his custody.
30. Further, accused admitted that he received the legal demand notice but he failed to reply the same. Accused has not placed on record if he has taken any legal action against the complainant company for recovery of his due amount or any legal action taken by him regarding the misuse of the cheque in question. Even the accused has failed to produce any NOC regarding work done by him.
31. In the light of my foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that none of the defences of accused have been proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accused has merely offered a series of explanations by claiming that he had completed the work order. However, the said explanation of the accused has not been proved as per law by either relying upon the materials placed on record in the evidence of complainant or leading independent evidence of his own. The accused has not managed to prove the defences taken by him in his evidence on the scale of preponderance of possibilities. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances detailed above, I am of the considered opinion that accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 NI Act by raising any probable defence.
Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:10:19 +0530
32. On the contrary, the complainant successfully proved its case and had fully corroborated his testimony, that the accused failed to complete the work order and the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of liability. Complainant has further supported its case that the cheque in question was dishonoured upon presentation due to "funds insufficient" and thereafter the accused had failed to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque amount. The ingredients of offence punishable under section 138 NI Act have been duly proved by the complainant, accused Lavi Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Lavi Yadav Contractor and Supplier. Accordingly held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 138 NI Act.
33. Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
34. A copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.09.15 18:10:26 +0530 Announced in the open (SACHIN) Court on 15.09.2025 JMFC-03 East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Complaint Case No. 3187/19 M/s Manu Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Lavi Yadav contractor & suppliers Page 18 of 18