Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

The Present Complaint U/S 138 ... vs Mohd on 18 September, 2009

                                       -: 1 :-


IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA: SENIOR CIVIL 
         JUDGE­CUM­RENT CONTROLLER: ROHINI DELHI



CC No. 837/09.


In the matter of: 

Ms. Swarcha Soni
D/o Sh. Prakash Nath
R/o H­32/72, Sector ­3,
Rohini, Delhi ­110085.

                                                     ..........Complainant.
                                  Versus

Smt. Raj Kumari  Talwar,
Wife of Sh. Ashwani Talwar,
R/o 61­B, Block ­BR,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
                                                            ......... Accused


                     Date of Institution :  28.07.2003.
                     Date of reservation: 08.09. 2009.
                     Date of Judgment:    18.09.2009. 


JUDGMENT:

1. The present complaint U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the complainant against the accused which shall be disposed of by this court by way of present judgment. The facts of the case, briefly, are that the complainant has filed the present complaint stating that she -: 2 :- advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 5,25,000/­ ( Rupees five lacs and twenty five thousand only) to the accused at her request. It is the case of the complainant that she and the accused were known to each other being employees in a school namely Prabhu Dayal Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi , as teachers. It is the case of the plaintiff that the accused issued six cheques in her favour with the assurance that the same would be encashed on their presentation with the bank. The details of the cheques on the basis of which the present case has been filed are as under: 

   CHEQUE NO.                 DATED                 AMOUNT

   785329                     14.06.2003            Rs. 75,000/­

   783078                     14.06.2003            Rs. 1,00,000/­

   783080                      30.06.2003           Rs. 1,00,000/­

   783081                      30.06.2003           Rs. 1,00,000/­

   783083                      30.06.2003           Rs.  70,000/­

   783084                      30.06.2003           Rs. 80,000/­

2. It is averred in the complaint that the aforesaid cheques were deposited by the complainant for encashment with her bank but all the cheques were returned back dishonoured by the bankers of the accused with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" vide Banker's memo dated 23.06.2003 and -: 3 :- 401.07.2003 respectively. It is averred that the complainant tried to contact the accused, when her husband namely Sh. Ashwani Talwar, informed the complainant that the accused had gone to UK and that the accused shall make the entire payment of principal amount and other incidental charges when she will come back. It is averred that the accused failed to make payment against any of these cheques which is still outstanding and payable by her. The complainant has further averred that a legal notice dt. 01.07.03 was issued upon the accused calling upon her to make the payment against the dishonoured cheques and the legal notice was sent through registered AD as well as UPC post and were duly served upon the accused but despite the same, the accused has failed to make the payment, hence the present complaint.

3. The complainant led pre­summoning complainant evidence and accused was summoned for the offence U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act vide orders of the court dt. 30.07.03. Accused was duly served but initially failed to appear and filed an application U/s 294 read with section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as another application for recalling of the summons. Vide detailed orders of the court dt. 27.11.04, the applications were dismissed. Thereafter, an application for permanent exemption, which was pending disposal, was disallowed vide the orders of -: 4 :- the court dt. 04.06.2005. Thereafter, on petition of the accused in Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 761/05 , Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dt. 20.07.06 has been pleased to allow the exemption of the petitioner from personal appearance through her husband and her counsel with further directions for expeditious trial in the present case. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, has been further pleased to observe that the petitioner/ accused is required to appear on the date when the judgment is to be pronounced. Accordingly, notice U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was framed against the accused on the person of her husband through whom the accused has been exempted permanently . The husband of the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The complainant, in its post notice complainant evidence, has examined herself in support of the complaint. The complainant has also led the testimony of the Manager of the bank of the accused as PW2 / CW2. In her own testimony, the complainant has deposed in conformity with the contents of the complaint in regard to the relationship between herself and the accused and the advancement of a friendly loan of Rs. 5,25,000/­ to the accused. The complainant has testified that the accused issued cheques in question tendered as Ex. CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6 for repayment of the said friendly loan -: 5 :- with the assurance that the cheques would be encashed on their presentation with the bank. It has been deposed by the complainant that all the exhibited cheques which forms part of the present complaint were drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prabhu Dayal Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi ­110052 and when they were presented for encashment, none of the cheques in question were honoured by bankers of the accused which was returned unpaid with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" vide return memos dt. 23.06.03 and 01.07.2003 tendered and proved on record as Ex.CW1/7 to Ex.CW1/8­D. It has been further deposed by the complainant that she tried to contact the accused after the dishonourment of the cheques in question but the husband of the accused further requested the complainant that the accused will make the entire payment of the principal amount /incidental charges when she returns back to India but despite various efforts, accused did not pay the amounts against the cheques in question. The complainant has further relied upon the legal notice dt. 01.07.03 issued upon the accused to call upon her to make the payment against the cheques in question. The complainant has tendered carbon copy of notice Ex.CW1/9, postal receipt Ex.PW1/10 and UPC certificate as Ex.CW1/11. It is deposed by the witness/complainant that the legal notice was -: 6 :- duly served upon the accused but the accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of service of notice dt. 01.07.03. It is stated that the complaint has been filed within limitation. The witness has been cross­examined at length by Sh.N.S.Bhullar, Ld. counsel for accused , after the affidavit of evidence was tendered in chief ­examination as Ex. P1 after identifying the signatures at Point A & B. The complainant was cross­examined regarding the details of the cheques issued by her to the accused which have been answered by her after going through her record. The complainant has testified that she had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/­ by way of cheque bearing no. 207735 drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce , Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. On 23.08.96, cheque no. 232170 amounting to Rs. 25,000/­, on dt. 23.08.96 cheque no. 979649 for Rs. 20,000/­, on dt. 04.03.96 cheque no 996870 for Rs. 10,000/­ , on dated 27.01.96 cheque no. 996867 amounting to Rs. 10,000/­, on dt. 10.01./96 cheque No. 996866 for Rs. 4,000/­ , on 24.11.95 cheque no. 996860 for Rs. 20,000/­ on 11.11.95 cheque no. 996858 for Rs. 30,000/­ all drawn at Oriental Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi favouring of accused. The complainant was asked if she had any blood relation with the accused which was denied re­ testifying that the accused was her school friend. The -: 7 :- complainant has further stated in cross­examination that the loan was not given for any specific period to the accused and has denied the suggestion that the loan was given to the accused for the period of one year only. During further cross­ examination, witness answered that her salary was Rs. 14,000/­ per month and she had some rental income also. The complainant witness further testified that all the cheques against the friendly loan were given in the name of her husband. The complainant was further confronted that the cheques in question Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6. The witness deposed that the cheques in question were not issued by the accused in her presence and denied the suggestion that she altered the dates of cheques to bring them within the ambit of Limitation Act. The witness denied that the date of issuance of cheque Ex. CW1/1 was 17.06.2000 . The complainant witness was asked if all the entries of the cheques in question were made in one ink only to which the witness has denied that she had no knowledge again denying that the date was changed by her. The complainant witness denied the suggestion that the cheque Ex. CW1/1 was defaced by her by using some chemicals. She has further denied that the date dt. 14.06.2003 was not in the handwriting of the accused as suggested and denied that the date 14.06.03 encircled in Ex.CW1/1 was having -: 8 :- chemical effex. The PW1/ CW1 witness has further denied the suggestion that the date of Ex.CW1/2 was 14.06.2000 and Ex.CW1/3 was 30.06.2000 and further replied similarly in respect of cheques bearing no. CW1/4, Ex.CW1/5 & Ex.CW1/6 with the suggestion that the original dates are 30.06.2000 and not 30.06.2003. The complainant witness denied all the suggestions to any change in the dates on the cheques in question. The witness has further admitted that the accused was returning some of the amounts against the cheques issued by the complainant. The complainant has further deposed that the accused made last payment of Rs. 5,000/­ in the month of May/June 2003 but failed to express any memory regarding the total amount paid by the complainant to the accused or received by her from the accused. The complainant denied the suggestion that she was a money lender or that she used to give the money to the accused at exorbitant charges. It has been denied that the complainant did not issue any receipt received by her from the accused and has voluntarily stated that the accused used to take back the amount returned, from the complainant, after few days. The complainant as witness has further deposed that she could not say if the amount of this loan were shown in her income tax returns or not and denied the suggestion that the complaint -: 9 :- was false or that she had received the amount against the cheques in question. The witness was asked if she remembered that the accused had given a FDR of Rs. 1 lac in October 2008 to which the witness replied in negative.

The second and the only remaining witness examined by the complainant is Mr. K.L.Dhingra , Manager , Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prabhu Dayal Public School Branch, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The witness has been summoned in respect of the accounts of the accused with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prabhu Dayal Public School Branch, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The summoned witness testified that the accused was maintaining her Saving Bank Accounts with the bank and that the cheques in question in favour of the complainant were presented and dishonoured for wants of funds vide return memos Ex. CW1/ 8B, Ex.CW1/8C & Ex.CW1/8D , CW1/7, CW1/8 & Ex.CW1/8A . The witness produced a copy of statement of record and tendered the same as Ex.CW2/1. The statement of record was duly certified as per Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The witness has been cross­examined by ld. Counsel for the accused in respect of the training of the witness to detect any forgery committed upon the cheque or a document. The witness replies that he is not trained in respect of any forgery and was not aware of guidelines of RBI in this regard. -: 10 :- PW2/CW2 replied that when any cheques comes for clearance, the bank staff verified the correctness of drawer , correctness of the date of issuance of any forgery in the contents of the cheque. It is further testified that the bank have got instructions that if any fraud is detected , the same was required to be verified through ultra­virus rays. The witness further voluntarily testified that if the amount of the cheques was heavy then the bank officials were under the directions to contact the drawer of the cheques before clearance. The witness was shown the cheques in question but the witness stated that he could not say if the cheques in question were having any chemical reaction . The witness were further shown the documents dt. 29.01.07 issued by the bank. The witness could not identify the signatures on the documents which was exhibited as Ex.CW2/D1. The complainant did not examine any other witness and the counsel for complainant closed the complainant evidence.

5. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded without oath after putting each and every relevant incriminating evidence to the accused. While recording the statement of the accused through the attorney of the accused Ashwani Talwar, who is the husband of the accused, it has been denied that the accused obtained a friendly loan -: 11 :- of Rs. 5,25,000/­ from the complainant. It was further put to the accused that the cheques in question ( all the six cheques with the details thereof put to the accused), were issued by the accused in discharge of her liability in favour of the complainant. It has been replied for the accused that the cheques in question were given in the year 1999 for the year 2000 but the same have been forged for the year 2003. The contents of the remaining suggestion were denied. It has been admitted as matter of record that the cheques in question were not encashed on presentation. The suggestion regarding the service of demand notice dt. 01.07.03 upon the accused and the failure of the accused to make the payment of amount involved in cheques in question within 15 days from the receipt of the notice has been denied. In the explanation of the accused, it has been stated that there is nothing due against the accused and that the accused has already further paid the entire loan. Reliance has been placed on Ex. DW1/!­2/1, DW1­ A2W2 with a prayer that the same be read as part and parcel of the statement of accused. Ex. DW1/A­2/2 is the transcription of digitally recorded telephonically conversation dt. 02.09.01 allegedly between the complainant and the accused alongwith recorded CD filed on record.

The husband of the accused has tendered himself in -: 12 :- defence evidence of the accused and has filed his evidence of affidavit as Ex­DW1/1. DW1 Sh. Ashwani Talwar has testified that he is the husband of the accused and her Power of Attorney in the present case being well conversant with the facts of the case. It is testified that the original date of tender of Ex­ CW1/1 is 01.06.2009 and the same has been changed to 14.06.2003 by the complainant by chemical effex which is visible to the naked eyes. DW1 has further deposed that original date on Ex­CW1/2 was 14.06.2000 and the same was written by the deposing witness with the allegations that date has been changed to 14.06.2003 by the complainant. It is deposed that the figure 14, 6, 3 are different in handwriting which is neither of the accused nor the deposing witness. It has been further deposed that similar date of Ex­CW1/3 to Ex­ CW1/6 were changed from 30.06.2000 to 30.06.2003 by the complainant and that the changed dates on the cheques in question are in different ink and in different handwriting. It has been deposed that the changed figure 30, 6 and 3 is neither in the handwriting of the accused nor that of deposing witness. DW1 has further relied upon the CD and its transcript which has been tendered during the statement of accused has been exhibited and relied upon as Ex­DW1­A2/1 and Ex­DW1­A2/2. The defence witness has been cross examined at length by Sh. -: 13 :- Anand Maheshwari, ld. counsel for complainant. DW1 has affirmed that the accused, who is the wife of deposing witness, and the complainant were both working as teachers in the school having good relation with each other. It has been further admitted that the accused remained in the employment of the school till July 2003. The witness again said that his wife remained in the school till May 2003 and resigned from her job in the month of July 2003. The witness voluntarily deposed that the accused went to U.K. on 13.02.2003 and that she is permanently living in U.K. During further cross examination, DW1 deposed that he had full knowledge about the loans taken by his wife, payment of interest and repayments of loan as the same were dealt in his presence. It is deposed that DW1 used to remain with his wife during all the aforesaid transactions. The witness, however, deposed that he could not give date, month and year when the accused took loan or made payment towards interest and also dates for repayment of loans. DW1 stated that he had maintained the accounts and stated that it was correct that all the cheques in question were given from joint accounts of himself and his wife. DW1, further clarified that Ex­ CW1/1 was given from personal account of the accused. It was admitted as correct that there is no receipt of payment made by the accused to the complainant. DW1 deposed that -: 14 :- complainant never used to issue any receipt of payments made to her against loan taken by the accused. It has been deposed that the accused never wrote any letter to the complainant after clarifying the outstanding amount which the accused had taken from the complainant. It is deposed that the complainant was asked to return the cheque but she never returned the cheque. DW1 further explained that no reply to the notice issued by the complainant Ex­CW1/9 was given as DW1 was busy with the admission of his son. DW1, however, again said that no such legal notice was received. DW1, further admitted the suggestion that the accused had taken loan from Citi Bank which was paid after selling the flat of the deposing witness, also admitting that the flat was sold by him in March, 2003. The witness again said that he did not remember the exact month. DW1 admitted the names of some of the school teachers but denied the suggestion that the accused had taken any loan from them. DW1 admitted that cheque Ex­CW1/1 to Ex­CW1/6 were signed by the accused and also the name of the drawee, amount in words and figure are also written in the handwriting of the accused. It is deposed that the date of issuance of cheque have been written by DW1. DW1, however, voluntarily deposed that the dates on the cheques in question were interpolated by the complainant. DW1 denied the -: 15 :- suggestion that the accused had a liability against the cheques Ex­CW1/1 to Ex­CW1/6 or that the accused had given assurance that the cheques would be encashed on presentation as she had sold her house. DW1, deposed that all the cheques in question were issued by the accused as collateral security towards the loan which the accused had taken and denied that they were issued to clear her debt which she taken from the complainant. DW1, has further stated that the CD and the transcript put on record was of the date 02.09.2001 and explained that the same have been recorded as the complainant was not issuing receipt of various payments made by the accused to her from time to time. DW1 has admitted that till 02.09.2001, accused had not cleared her liabilities towards the complainant. It has been denied that Ex­CW1/1 to Ex­CW1/6 were issued by the accused before going to U.K. to clear her liabilities of payments to the complainant. It has been deposed again that the cheques in question were issued in the year 1999 for the year 2000 denying the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

The defendant has further examined one more defence witness by way of the testimony of Mr. Virender Kumar, official from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prabhu Dayal School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi with the summoned record. DW2 has -: 16 :- tendered on record the original letter dated 29.01.2007 issued by the bank as Ex­CW12/D1 by placing the certified copy thereof on record. DW1 has testified that as per records of the bank a cheque of Rs. One lakh dated 10.10.1998 was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant which was converted to an FDR in the name of the complainant in the same bank. Certified letter is Ex­DW2/2 and the certified copy of the FDR is tendered as DW2/3. Certified copy of transfer voucher has been exhibited as Ex­DW2/4. DW1 has testified that FDR was encashed by the complainant on 23.01.1999. The summoned original letter has been tendered as Ex­DW2/5. The witness has not been cross examined by the complainant.

6. After examination of the aforesaid two witnesses in defence, accused moved two applications for rectification of typographical mistake in regarding statement of DW1 recorded on 02.07.2007 and for sending the cheques in question for expert opinion to CFSL. The Court vide its order dated 17.07.2007 found no merits in the first application which was disallowed. However, the second application of the accused was allowed for sending the cheques in question to CFSL for examination by the expert with the point of reference that "Whether dates of cheques have been re­written after removal of any previous date of drawn by use of any -: 17 :- chemical ? If yes, what are the previous date of drawn of cheque ?" On repeated reminders issued by the Court to the CFSL Authority, since the present case is time bound matter, the CFSL report has been received by the Court dated 14.08.2007. Thereafter, accused moved another application for summoning and cross examining the CFSL expert for the purpose of cross examination for checking the authenticity of CFSL report. The court vide its detailed order dated 14.01.2008 dismissed and disallowed the application of the accused on the ground that FSL report was admissible in evidence without the summoning of official witness and that the same was obtained at the request of the accused herself. The Court has further observed that the admissibility of the report has not been questioned by the complainant and therefore, there was no ground for allowing the application. Accordingly, the defence evidence has been closed and the matter was posted for final argument.

7. The Court has examined the detailed written arguments filed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and appreciated the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel Sh. Anand Maheshwari for the complainant and Ld. Counsel Sh. N.S. Bhullar for the accused.

8. Additional facts of arguments have again filed before this -: 18 :- Court which have also been duly considered. The Court has carefully gone through the entire record pertaining to this case for appropriate adjudication under consideration before the Court. The Court is to keep in mind that the present case pertains to a criminal trial against the accused U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the initial onus to prove the case against the accused lies upon the complainant who has the onus to discharge in order to establish an unbroken chain of event pointing out towards the commission of offence by the accused thereby proving its case against the accused beyond pales of reasonable doubt. Thus law of criminal jurisprudence are applicable subject to special enactment of Negotiable Instruments Act which lays down the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque by virtue of Section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court is to examine if the accused is entitled to any benefit of doubt that may arise due to any discrepancies or lack of worthiness of the case of the complainant as per the special rules of evidence applicable under the Negotiable Instruments Act in addition to the special rules of evidence applicable to criminal trial to the extent that they do not contradict each other. Therefore, the following ingredients are required to be prove under Negotiable Instruments Act for adjudication of the case. -: 19 :-

1. The cheque should have been issued by the accused in discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability.

2. The cheque should have been presented to the bank within a period of 6 months from date of its being drawn or period of validity which is earlier.

3. The cheque should have been dishonored either because of insufficient funds or for the remarks Exceeds Arrangements.

4. The payee or holder in due course of cheque as the case may be makes the demand for payment of cheque amount by demand notice which has to be given in writing to the drawer of cheque within 30 days from the receipt of such information.

5. The drawer of cheque falls to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of such notice.

6. That the complaint has been filed within one month of the cause of action being arisen in favour of the complainant.

9. The aforesaid ingredient are to be proved in light of the provisions U/S 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act which lays down the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque to the effect that the cheque was received for discharge " in whole or in part" by any debt or other liabilities by the drawer. It is accordingly, the law of the land that the legal presumption of the -: 20 :- cheque being issued in favour of the holder for due discharge of liability shifts the burden of proof upon the accused whereby it is for the accused to adduce rebuttal evidence to prove that the cheque was not issued towards any antecedent liability. The court is to accordingly appreciate the evidence in light of this applicable law regarding burden of proof which shall be discussed, at length later in this judgment. Reliance placed on (1999) 97 Comp. Cases 664 titled KI George Vs. Mohd. Master.

11. The Court, however, is to satisfy itself regarding the following four aspects for bringing home the conviction U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 

(a)    Validity of cheque.

(b)    The complaint being filed within limitation.

(c)    That  the dishonoured cheque was being issued in due

discharge of a legally enforceable liability by the drawer.

(d) Service of legal demand notice on the accused and his failure to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of such demand notice.

12 The court shall now examined the peculiar facts of -: 21 :- the present case in light of the applicable law. The court shall first examine the first ingredient aforesaid after due appreciation the material on record and the applicable law in light of the contention for both the sides. The court is to satisfy itself regarding the validity of the cheque/cheques in question. The present complaint U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is based upon 6 cheques purportedly issued by the accused from her account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch at Prabhu Dayal Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and the same have been tendered on record in evidence by the complainant as Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6 . The details of the cheques tendered on record are as under: 

CHEQUE NO.                  DATED                 AMOUNT

785329                      14.06.2003            Rs. 75,000/­

783078                      14.06.2003            Rs. 1,00,000/­

783080                      30.06.2003            Rs. 1,00,000/­

783081                      30.06.2003            Rs. 1,00,000/­

783083                      30.06.2003            Rs.  70,000/­

783084                      30.06.2003            Rs. 80,000/­.

13. It is not the case of the accused herself that either of these cheques have not been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for the amount mentioned on the cheques from the accounts of the accused. The material and only -: 22 :- defence in respect of the validity of the cheques put forth by the accused is regarding the allegations of fabrication/ alteration of the cheques by interpolation of the date of each cheque by using chemical effex by the complainant. Whereas, it is the case of the complainant, that the cheques in question were validly issued by the accused against the outstanding liability for the dates reflected on the cheques, the accused in its defence has strongly raised a defence against it. Whereas notice has been framed against the accused in respect of all the aforesaid six cheques on the basis of which the accused has been summoned. The complainant has led her evidence in support of her complaint and has led her deposition that all the cheques in question have been issued by the accused for the repayment of the friendly loan advanced by the complainant to the accused. The complainant has been cross­ examined by ld. Counsel for accused in respect of the cheques in question to which the complainant has testified that all the cheques were issued by the accused in the presence of the complainant. The complainant denied the suggestion that she had altered the dates of the aforesaid cheques to bring them in the ambit of Limitation Act. It has been denied by the complainant during further cross­ examination that the date of issuance of the cheques was in the -: 23 :- year 2000 as suggested by the ld. Counsel for accused. It is the case of the complainant that the cheques in question were given by the accused in the same condition as the same have been presented by the complainant in her bank for encashment. The other bank witness CW2 examined by the complainant has also duly proved all the cheques in question in conformity with testimony of the complainant in regard to their validity. CW2 has testified that the cheques were dishonoured by the banker of the accused as there was no sufficient funds to meet the cheque amounts. Ld. Counsel for accused has further cross­examined CW2 in respect of any forgery that may have been committed upon the cheques in question. The witness specifically answered that bank staff verifies the correctness of the drawer , date of issuance or any forgery in any contents of the cheque, when the cheques are cleared. The bank witness was specifically confronted with the cheques Ex. CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6 to examine if there were any chemical reaction visible on the cheque in question. CW2 specifically answered that he could not say, after seeing, if the cheques had any chemical reaction.

14. While recording statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. which has been given by Sh. Ashwani Talwar, husband of accused who has been exempted through him, the -: 24 :- defence has been put forth by the accused that the cheques in question were given in the year 1999 for the year 2000 but the same have been forged for the year 2003. Further in defence evidence, Sh. Ashwani Talwar, husband of the accused has tendered his evidence vide Ex. DW1/1 wherein he has deposed that the original dates of cheques in question were of the year 2000 and that the date on the cheques in question had been written by him. It is deposed that the handwriting and the ink on the cheques are different and are not in the handwriting of the accused nor the deposing witnesses. In cross­examination on the aspect under consideration in respect of the validity of the cheques, the witness DW2 has stated in his cross­examination that the cheques in question were issued from the account/ joint account of the accused and that all the cheques Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/6 were signed by the accused and the name of the drawee amounts in words and figures are also written by the accused herself. DW1 further deposed that the dates of issuance of cheques are written by him further deposing that they have been interpolated by the complainant . After examination of two defence witnesses , second defence witness being irrelevant, for the point being under consideration, an application was moved U/s 343 Cr.P.C. read with section 87 of Negotiable Instruments Act for sending -: 25 :- the cheques in question to the CFSL for examination on the ground that the cheques in question were never issued in the year 2003 but have been fabricated by the complainant by using chemical. The court observed that since the allegation of removal of original dates by use of chemical and putting of manipulated date on all the cheques in question can not be tested by bare perusal by naked eye or determined by the statement of parties, the examination required expert opinion and accordingly, the cheques in question were sent to CFSL, Rohini, for expert opinion in regard to the following point :

"Whether dates of cheques have been re­written after removal of any previous date of drawn by using any chemical and what are the previous date of drawn of the cheques." An FSL report dt. 16.10.07 has been filed in respect of the court reference alongwith the cheques in question which were also received back by the court with the report of the expert. It has been reported by the FSL expert after laboratory examination of the cheques in question that all the documents were correctly and throughly examined with scientific instruments and it was found that the writing on the portion Mark Q­1 & Q­2 on Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/2, were similar in nature but different from the ink of the rest of the writing existing on the cheque at Mark X­1 & X­2. It has been further reported that the enclosed -: 26 :- portion Q­3 to Q­6 on the cheques in question Ex. CW1/3 to Ex. CW1/6 were similar in nature but different from the writing on the cheques in question. It has been further determined that there was no physical or chemical eraser that can be detected on the cheques Marked X­1 to X­6 which are the cheques in question , which are Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/6 . This CFSL report has been brought on record at the instance of the accused, at the request of the accused. Same is admissible in evidence and has been examined by the court for the purpose of appreciation of the present case.
15. The court has carefully considered the applicable law and the authorities relied upon by ld. Counsel for accused. The court shall examine the extent of proof required to be furnished by the accused to establish the rebuttal of the presumption U/s 139 Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 118 of the Act. However, at this point, the court is limiting itself to the appreciation of question of validity of the cheques which has been challenged by the accused. It is not the case of the accused herself that the cheques in question were not issued by the accused against the account of the accused. On the contrary, it is case put forth before the court by the testimony of DW1 himself that all the cheques in question were written in favour of the complainant and that the -: 27 :- amounts in figures and words were written on it and duly signed by the accused herself. The only defence raised in respect of the validity of the cheques in question is on the ground that there has been a interpolation , alteration and fabrication of the cheques in question to change the dates of issuance of cheques to a later date by the complainant so as to bring the case within the ambit of limitation. It is the case of the accused that the cheques were issued to the complainant in the year 2000 and were valid for payment only during such period. The cheques in question Ex. CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/ 6 are all dated in the year 2003. Admittedly, the date of issuance has been written by the husband of the accused where as the rest of the writing on the cheques has been written by the accused herself. The careful appreciation of the FSL report, therefore, stands duly corroborated by the evidence on behalf of the accused herself as the writing on the date of each cheque in question could be in ink different from the rest of the writing on the cheque in question as the same has been admittedly written by the husband of the accused. There is no evidence on record to support the defence put forth by the accused that there is any fabrication on the cheques in question by the complainant or any one else. In absence of any such material to show any fabrication, no dent has been put on the case of the -: 28 :- complainant on the aspect of validity of the cheques in question. In this light, court also considers it worth appreciating the transcript and audio CD exhibited by DW1 and also relied upon while recording statement of accused U/s 313CR.P.C. as Ex. DW1/A1/1 and DW1­A2/1 to show that there were telephonic talks as per the transcript Ex. DW1­A/1/1 & Ex. DW1­A2/1. in respect of the conversation between the complainant and the accused on 02.09.01 recorded vide CD Ex. DW1/A2/1. A careful consideration of this evidence of this nd accused reveals that as on 02 Sept. 2001, there was outstanding dues and liability against the accused in favour of the complainant. These documents are not questioned or challenged by the complainant herself and, therefore, considering the same as untampered documents, same does not support the accused in its defence that the cheques in question could not have been issued by the accused after the year 2000 as the conversation recorded between complainant nd and accused is of 02 Sept. 2001. It is worth observing that DW1 has admitted in his cross­examination that the accused resigned from her job in the school where the complainant and accused were teachers, in the month of July 2003 and the cheques in question are dated 14.06.03 and 13.06.03. On this account also, there are no doubts created upon the validity -: 29 :- of the cheques in question is also Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6 and the cheques are accordingly, proved on record in accordance with law.
16. It is well settled principle of law as held in Modi Cement Ltd. Vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi AIR 1998 SC 1057 :
wherein it has been held that "once the cheque is issued by drawer the presumption U/s 139 of the Act must follow." It has been further held in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr.JT 1999 (7) SC 558. that "as the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption." By way of the aforesaid discussion, there is no material put forth on record by the accused which can even create any doubt in support of defence that any change or interpretation of the dates of the cheques in question have taken place, as alleged. Accused has failed to put any such evidence or even explanation on record which could even make any such defence probable or plausible to the extent that the same could make any reasonable man to act on the supposition that it exists. While discussing the third ingredient required for proving the case U/s -: 30 :- 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, extent of rebuttal required by the accused shall be discussed at length but for the purpose of the first ingredient under consideration, there is no requirement for the court to examine any extent to proof so required by the accused to challenge the validity of the cheques as no plausible defence has been put forth before the court to create any doubt whatsoever, in the case of the complainant which proves the validity of the cheque and the issuance and execution thereof by or for the accused in favour of the complainant beyond the pales of reasonable doubt.
17. The court shall now examine the second ingredient in respect of the complaint being filed within limitation. The present case pertains to 6 cheques presented within the validity period with the banker of the complainant which were returned unpaid by the bankers of the accused vide return memos duly proved on record vide testimony of RW2 as Ex. CW1/2, Ex.CW1/8, Ex.CW1/8A, CW1/8B, CW1/8C,CW1/8D & Ex.CW1/7. RW2 has further testified that the cheques in question were dishonoured by the banker of the accused as there was no sufficient funds to meet the cheque amount.

Return memo so exhibited on record are of the date 23.06.03 in respect of cheque Ex.CW1/7 and Ex.CW1/8 and are dated 01.07.03 for the remaining cheque. The legal notice dt. -: 31 :- 01.07.03 has been issued and dispatched upon the accused vide postal receipt dt. 04.07.03 proved on record as Ex. CW1/10 & Ex.CW1/11. The legal notice is tendered as Ex.CW1/9. It is the case of the complainant that the legal notice was duly served upon the accused through registered AD as well as UPC post but on the receipt of notice, accused failed to make payment and hence, the present complainant has been filed. In this regard, complainant has not been cross­ examined. There is nothing stated in cross­examination of the complainant to suggest that the legal notice Ex.CW1/9 was not issued by the complainant or not received by the accused. Further in cross­examination of DW1, husband of the accused has admitted that he could not reply to the notice Ex.CW1/9 as he was busy in admission of his son.

19. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for accused has strongly disputed the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that no legal notice Ex.CW1/9 was served upon the accused, therefore, there was no question of any cause of action arising in favour of the complainant for filing the present complaint. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the authority in 2007 (1) DCR 213 on this aspect. The court has carefully considered the law applicable wherein the onus lies entirely on the complainant to prove that the notice -: 32 :- has been served upon the accused when the same is denied by the accused. In this light, the accused has also relied upon the authority of Andhra Pradesh IV (2004) BC 160 . In the present case, DW1 himself has admitted the receipt of legal notice and inability to reply the same. Further appreciation of record reveals that the legal notice has been sent at the Shalimar Bagh address to the accused vide registered cover as well as by UPC. The present complaint has been filed against the accused at the very same address and the summons have already been issued against the accused at the same address and have been duly served upon the accused at the sam address. Further appreciation of court record itself reveals that even accused has filed various petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirming the same address as her address. It has been also laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in numerous authorities as also in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 VIII AD (SC) 417 ­JT "that in case where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and he was not responsible for such non­ service." Accordingly, as per the various authorities of the Supreme Court applicable to the facts -: 33 :- of the present case, the complainant has been able to prove without any reasonable doubt that the legal notice Ex. CW1/9 was duly dispatched and served upon the accused. The complaint has been filed within the stipulated period envisaged U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, within limitation.

19. The court shall now examine fourth ingredient since the same is intrinsically connected with the discussion above on the second ingredient. The complainant has been able to duly prove on record the service of legal notice upon the accused. The same has also been admitted by DW1 in his cross­examination. The accused has denied any liability to make any payment against the cheques in question though it is not the case put forth by the accused herself that there was any payment against the cheques within 15 days of any such notice. A hotly contended defence denying any inability and liability to the accused against the cheques in question have been put forth during the trial. The fourth ingredient accordingly, stands duly proved on record beyond the pales of any reasonable doubts to the effect that the legal notice has been duly served upon the accused as per provisions U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and that the accused has failed to make any payment within 15 days on receipt of such notice. -: 34 :-

20. The court shall now examine the most contested ingredient which is the remaining aspect for determining if the offence U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act is made out against the accused or not. The complainant has to prove the third necessary ingredient that the dishonoured cheques in question were issued by the accused in due discharge of legally enforceable liability . The same is required to be proved by the complainant against the accused beyond the pales of reasonable doubt. The complainant, however, is entitled to a presumption U/s 139 r/w section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon catina of authorities which shall be hereinafter discussed to examine the extent and nature of rebuttal required to be proved by the accused before the court to create a doubt or put a dent in the case of the complainant which is required to be proved beyond the pales of reasonable doubts. It is beyond dispute that the accused is not required to prove a defence by way of leading conclusive evidence to the extent of proving its defence beyond th pales of reasonable doubt in order to rebut the presumption U/s 139 r/w section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act. The law presumes that the cheque was issued for discharge , in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, This -: 35 :- presumption however, can be rebutted by the accused by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the accused to discharge.

21. The court shall now discuss the extent of proof that the accused is required to be given by the accused in order to rebut the presumption U/s 139 read with section 118 N.I.Act regarding the dishonour cheque having been issued in due discharge of legally enforceable liability by drawee. " Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various authorities. There has been a lot of development of law on the subject as the time have passed. The law has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiten P Dalal Vs. Batinder Nath Banerjee wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that " presumption u/s 139 Negotiable Instruments Act is to be rebutted by proof and not by bear explanation which is merely plausible. The fact is said to be proved when its existence is established or when upon the material before it, the court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions can not be said to be rebutted."

22. It has , therefore, been laid down by Hon'ble -: 36 :- Supreme Court in the cited authority that the accused had the onus to rebut the presumption U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act read with section Section 118 of the Act by putting a probable proof that was sufficient to create a doubt regarding the issuance of cheque against the legally enforceable liability. It is suffice for the accused to discharge the onus to rebut the presumption by putting forth a plausible defence by way of reliable proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further laid down the law on this aspect in M.S Narain Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 2006 III A (Crl.) (SC) 1. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforecited latest authority on the subject that for rebutting the presumption of law, the standard of proof that was required by the accused was only to raise a probable defence, so as to discharge the initial onus to prove. It has been laid down that the accused was not required to disprove the case of the complainant /prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed at length the relevant provisions under the law and law is laid down by various courts till then. It has been, therefore, held as law of the land " that for rebutting some presumption, it is needed to be raised by a probable defence." It has been further held that the standard of proof for raising a probable defence is "preponderance of probabilities" which can be drawn not only -: 37 :- by bringing the material on record but also by reference to the circumstances.

23. The accused has also relied upon the various authorities as in 2007 (1) JCC (NI) 28. In this authority also, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has fortified the law and held that " whether presumption stood rebutted or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The standard of proof in discharge of the burden in terms of Section U/s 139 N.I.Act being of preponderance of probabilities, the inference, therefore, can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon­ The burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. In the light of law laid down as per the discussion above, the court shall examine the various aspect of the taking put forth by the accused to rebut the presumption U/s 139 N.I.Act examine whether the cheques in question were issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability.

24. The court shall first examine the defence of the accused on the aspect that the cheques in question being issued by the accused for a liability that was time barred. It is the case of the accused that the transaction of friendly loan took -: 38 :- place between the complainant and the accused way back in the year 1999 and that the cheques were issued by the accused for payment to be made in the year 2000. The court has already discussed at length regarding the inability of the accused to create any doubt on the date of issuance of cheques in question which are issued as per record in the month of June 2003. Taking the case of the accused that liability, if any, of the accused arose in the year 1999 then whether the present complaint U/s 138 N.I.Act filed in July 2003 would be considered to be against the legal enforceable liability. As such, not much stress has been made during the submissions by ld. Counsel for accused and no authority in this regard has also been filed. It is however, well settled law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case A.V.Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasa­Vanna , 2002 I AD ( SC) 681 that by issuance of a cheque "by the accused in respect of the time barred debt, cheques issued amounted to an acknowledgment of existing debt so that the cheque has been issued in consonance with the explanation U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the complaint is maintainable." The other defence that has been put forth by the accused which came up for the first time in the cross­examination of defence witness/ DW1 is that the cheques in question were issued by the accused as collateral -: 39 :- security and not against presenting liability. It has been contended strongly by ld. Counsel for the accused that cheques in question were given as collateral security and not agianst any existing debt that was taken by the accused from the complainant. It is for the first time that this new defence was introduced at the stage of cross­examination of DW1 as no such suggestion has been put during the cross­examination of the complainant's witness and even at the time of recording the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. It was the case of the accused while recording the statement that the amount against the cheques have already been paid. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the authorities in numerous pronounced judgments of the various High Courts of the country. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon as 1999 (2) JCC (HC) 45 and the authority of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2003 (3) JCC­304 , the said authorities which has been appreciated by the court in respect of the subject matter under consideration.

25. It is well settled principal of law laid down in the judgment relied upon by counsel for accused and also in case of Shanku Concretes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujrat , 2000 Crl. L.J. 1988, that if post dated cheques are issued as collateral security for due performance of contract, then on -: 40 :- their dishonour no offence is made out . In the cited authority, the court held that when at the time of issuance of cheque, no liability or debt is existed in favour of the complainant, then issuance of such post dated cheques were given merely as collateral security without any debt or liability and so that these cheques are dishonoured , no offence is made out as only civil liability was existed. However, the aforesaid cited authorities and the well settled preposition of law as discussed above is not applicable to the parties of the present case. It is the case of the accused in defence that the cheques in question were issued by the accused for the loans taken by the accused in the year 1999 which was proposed to be paid one year after. However, there is subsequent material on record by way of testimony as well as documents to show that the cheques in question have been issued by the accused in June 2003. During cross­examination of DW1, it has been admitted that the accused and the complainant had good relations with each other and that the accused in in employment of the same school, where the complainant was also a teacher. DW1 has admitted in his cross­examination that the accused remained in the school till July 2003 when she permanently shifted to U. K. Heavy reliance has been placed in defence of the accused on the audio CD an -: 41 :- accompanying transcript in Ex. DW1/A­2/1 and Ex. DW1/A­ 2/2. DW1 has also relied upon the same in his testimony. The court has seen the entire material which was tendered by the accused to see the extent of reliability and relevance of the material on the facts of the present case. Careful appreciation of the entire conversation between the plaintiff and the accused which is stated to have been taken place on 02.09.01 only goes to show that there were numerous transactions between the complainant and the accused and during the entire conversation relied upon by the accused, the complainant has been raising demand upon the accused for repayment of the loan urgently and at the earliest. The transcripted conversation further reveals that the accused had been defaulting and delaying the repayments. The court has also further observed that the conversation that allegedly took place in the year 2001 when the complainant and accused had good cordial relations and there was apparently continuous dealings on friendly terms between the complainant and accused. Neither of the facts reveal or suggest that the cheques in question were issued by the accused as a collateral security against the loan granted by the complainant to the accused . On the contrary, testimony of PW1/CW1 reveals the case of the complainant that the cheques in -: 42 :- question were for payment of the existing liability by the accused. In cross­examination of the complainant, fair details of the amounts of cheques paid by the complainant to the accused have been furnished. The complainant has categorically testified that there was no specific period for the loan which was given to the accused from time to time. The complainant has specifically denied that the loan was given to the accused for the period of one year only. It is also relevant to recall the testimony of DW1 wherein specific suggestions have been put to DW1 regarding the repayment of the loan given to the accused put forth by the ld. counsel for complainant. DW1 has admitted that in the first part of the year 2003, accused had taken loan from a bank which was cleared after selling a flat. Further more, the defence put forth by the accused regarding the issuance of the cheques in question as collateral security gets further unbelievable in cross­ examination of DW1 as it is the case of the the accused herself that she left the country for U.K. in July 2003 which further fortifies the presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheques in question dated 14.06.03 and 30.06.03 were issued by the accused against the pre­existing liability or debt in favour of the complainant before leaving the country . The accused has failed to satisfy the court on its defence that -: 43 :- the cheques in question were issued as collateral security to the complainant.

26. The other defence that has been put forth by the accused is to the effect that the accused has claimed that the amount against the cheques in question were paid to the complainant but the complainant failed to issue any receipt for repayment made by the accused, so that there was no existing liability to the accused in favour of the complainant that remains against the cheques in question.

27. In this light, the accused has cross­examined the PW1 regarding the specific period for which the loan was given to the accused from time to time. The complainant in her cross­ examination has testified that the loan was not given to the accused for specific period or for period of one year, as suggested in cross -examination and has further testified that the complainant has other source of income from her salary from where the loan was given to the accused. The complainant had admitted in her cross­examination that the accused used to return the some amount against the cheques. It has further stated that the accused was again taking loan against the payment made by her to the complainant. The complainant has admitted that no receipt of any payment were issued by her to the accused for the payment made by -: 44 :- accused, specifically denying that she has received the entire amount from the accused against the cheques in question. The accused has further stated in his statement U/s 313 CR.P.C. that the entire loan was given by the complainant to the accused was already overpaid but no receipt or any other supporting witness has been brought on record in this regard. There is no evidence either direct or circumstantial to show that the accused has cleared her liabilities against the cheques in question to the complainant. DW1 has been specifically cross­examined if there was any letter written by the accused to the complainant after clearing the outstanding amount against the cheques in question which the accused had taken from the complainant to which DW1 has answered in negative. It has been deposed by DW1 voluntarily that the accused had asked the complainant to return the cheques but the complainant never returned the same. The defence witness DW1 has also admitted the issuance of cheques. DW1 has been specifically put a suggestion that the accused had assured that the cheques in question would be encashed as the accused had sold her house which has been denied by DW1. However, in the cross­examination, DW1 has earlier admitted that the flat was sold by the accused some time around March 2003. DW1 further admitted that the recorded -: 45 :- conversation relied upon in defence of the accused was recorded on 02.09.01 and that the accused had not cleared her liabilities towards the complainant till 02.09.01. DW1 has been also put to a specific suggestion that the accused issued the cheques in question for clearance to her liabilities towards the complainant. In further defence, one another witness DW2 Sh. Virender Kumar has been examined who has proved that one FDR of Rs. 1 lac was issued in favour of the complainant on 10.10.98 from the account of the accused. The relevant documents have been duly exhibited and proved on record by the accused. The testimony of DW2 is relevant as the same is of the alleged repayment of the loan by the accused to the complainant in the year 1998. Whereas, it is admitted case of the accused before the court which has also surfaced for cross­examination of DW1 that the liability upon the accused were outstanding and payable beyond 02.09.01 as per the recorded conversation and transcript heavily relied upon by the accused in her defence. Therefore, any payment made by the accused in 1998 to the complainant would not put forth any relevant defence before the court.

28. The court is of the considered view that the accused has miserably failed to put forth any probable defence relied upon by the standard proof of preponderance of -: 46 :- probabilities either by the evidence or by circumstantial evidence to be able to create a dent and rebut the presumption U/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant.

29. Lastly and importantly the other defence put forth by the accused has been regarding the failure of the defendant to furnish the statement of account of various disbursement of the loans to the accused . It has been vehemently contended by ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant is under legal obligation to specifically prove the date and details of the money advanced to the accused. Reliance has been placed upon the authority of Orrisa High Court in Mst. Tebha Barihani, Appellant Vs. Prafulla Chandra Bhoi Respondent in 1998 A I H C 1184. The court has carefully appreciated the same in light of the applicable law. The authority relied upon by ld. Counsel for accused does not apply to the provisions U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as the same has been pronounced in the matter pertaining to the recovery suit under the Specific Relief Act. The court has however, examined the law on this aspect. It has been held by Hon'ble Highcourt of Delhi in Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. Raghupati Leasing and Finance Ltd. 100 ( 2002) DLT -: 47 :- 38 = 2002 VI AD (Delhi) 969, that there is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. It has been further held in various authorities of Hon'ble High Court that so long as there was a legally enforceable liability either on date of issuance of cheques or on the date of acknowledgement, the complainant is entitled to encash the cheque given by the accused, since the cheque has been issued against the existing legal and valid debt . The accused has not been able to put forth the plausible and probable defence to rebut the presumptions attached U/s 118 & 139 of the Act to show that there was no legally or validly existing debt or liability against him to discharge when the cheques in question were issued by the accused.

30. In light of the detailed discussion and appreciation of the case, the court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove on record its complaint U/s 138 N.I.Act against the accused beyond the pales of reasonable doubt in respect of the cheques in question Ex.CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/6, totaling to an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/­ . The accused not been able to create any probable defence to create any doubt which could puncture or fail the case of the complainant. The accused is accordingly convicted for offence U/s 138 N.I. Act .

-: 48 :-

31. The accused has been permanently exempted vide orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. MM No. 761 of 2005 vide orders dt. 20.07.06 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, through her husband and her counsel. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid orders has been pleased to issue directions for the accused to appear in court on the day when the judgment is to be pronounced. It has been the case of the counsel for accused that the accused was under inability to appear on the date fixed for judgment. Therefore, the court has announced the judgment today allowing the exemption of the accused for today. Accused is directed to appear on the next date of hearing which is fixed for arguments and orders on the point of sentence. Copy of the judgment be given to the accused free of cost.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 18.09.2009.

( PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA ) Senior Civil Judge­cum­Rent Controller (North­West), Rohini, Delhi.