Delhi District Court
In Re: Braham Singh Bhati vs . Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma on 15 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIDHI BALA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NI ACT DIGITAL COURT, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOMA COURT, DELHI
IN RE: BRAHAM SINGH BHATI VS. DEEPAK VERMA @ NEERAJ VERMA
1. Complaint Case no. : 779/2021
2. Date of Institution of case : 02.11.2021
3. Name of the complainant : Braham Singh Bhati
S/O Sh. Pitam Singh Bhati
R/O C-1147, Gali No. 22/3,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094.
4. Name of Accused person : Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma
S/O Sh. Devi Dayal Verma @ Dayal Verma
R/O H.No. 60, A-Block, Gali No. 13, Near
Prasadi Lal Pradhan Mandir/ Shiv Shakti
Mandir, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094.
Also At:-
M/S Durga Jewelers, Shop at A/414, Budh
Bazar Chowk, Laxmi Garden, Main Road,
Indirapuri, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
5. Offence complained of : Section 138 NI Act
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : AQUITTED
8. Date of judgment : 15.02.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgement the present complaint case for an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the NI Act") is being decided.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI BALA
Date:
BALA 2023.02.15
16:46:04
+0530
CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 1 of 14
2. Factual matrix of the case:-
2.1 It is alleged by the complainant that in the month of February, 2020, accused
was re-inducted/continued as tenant by the complainant in the built up property ground and first floor no. C-58, Gali No. 3, Dayalpur Ext., Karawal Nagar, Delhi at the monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/- per month and in this regard one rent agreement dated 04.02.2020 duly notarized was executed between the accused and the complainant for the period of two years commencing from 04.02.2020 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Accused was residing at the same accommodation as a tenant since 2017 and familiar relations were developed between the complainant and the accused. 2.2. In the month of January 2021, accused requested to the relative of the complainant namely Ranbir Singh who used to visit at the house of the complainant and some cordial friendly relations were developed between the accused and Ranbir Singh for granting loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lacs) since accused was facing serious financial problems and even could not pay the arrears of rent to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant and his relative Ranbir Singh gave the loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two lacs Fifty thousand ) each cumulating to Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lacs) to the accused.
2.3. Accused in order to discharge of abovesaid debt liability towards the complainant, issued a cheque bearing no. 000096 dated 31.08.2021 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Two Lac Fifty Thousand) drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Yamuna Vihar Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant with the assurance of its encashment. 2.4 In terms of the accused's commitment, the cheque in question was presented for encashment with the complainant's banker Punjab National Bank, Branch Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi (within the jurisdiction of this court). However the said cheque in question was returned unpaid / dishonored for the reason "Drawer Signarure Differs" vide cheque return memo dated 15.09.2021. Thereafter on 18.09.2021, complainant sent a legal demand notice to accused through counsel via speed post and called upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque amount in question within 15 days of receipt of legal notice but the same returned unserved with the report "Refused", therefore, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Digitally signed NIDHI by NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 16:46:09 2023.02.15 +0530 CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 2 of 14
3. On being satisfied of the prima facie ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 17.12.2021 and accused appeared alongwith his counsel after issuance of bailable warrants against him and he was admitted to bail. On 31.03.2022 notice under Section 251 Cr.PC r/w Section 263(g) Cr.P.C was framed and served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While putting forth his plea of defence, accused did not admit his signatures upon the cheque in question.
Accused also denied of receiving the legal demand notice sent by the complainant through counsel, however, admitted his address. The plea of accused is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
" My name is Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma. I know the complainant. I was residing on rent at his house bearing no. H.No. 58, Gali No. 3, C- Block, Dayal Pur, Delhi. I owed Rs. 20,000/- as rent to the complainant till April, 2021. due to the demise of my mother on 01.04.2021 and pandemic, I could not give rent to the complainant, then he querreled with me and locked the premises where I was residing on rent. Some of my arricles were left there alongwith my cheque book. I had not given the cheque in question to the complainant towards my legal liability. Though the cheque belongs to my account but neither it bear my signatures nor the other details are written by me. I do not owe the liability of cheque amount towards the complainant. I do not want to say anything else."
4. The accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant on oral submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the accused since Ld. Counsel for the complainant also did not have any objection and the same was consequently done.
5. EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT:
5.1 In Complainant's evidence, complainant (CW-1) tendered his evidence affidavit in post summoning evidence (as the solitary witness) and relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. CW-1/A : Evidence of the complainant by way of affidavit.
ii) Ex. CW-1/2: Original Cheque bearing no. 000096 dated 31.08.2021 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Two Lac Fifty Thousand) drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Yamuna Vihar Branch, Delhi. Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.02.15
16:46:14
+0530
CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 3 of 14
iii) Ex. CW-1/3: Original Cheque Return Memo dtd. 15.09.2021.
iv) Ex. CW-1/4: Statutory Legal demand notice dtd. 18.09.2021 sent by complainant to accused through counsel which returned.
v) Ex. CW-1/5 and Ex. CW-1/6: Speed post receipt and the returned envelope with the remarks "Refused" respectively.
6. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, 1973 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and he denied the liability of the cheque amount towards the complainant and also denied his signatures on the cheque in question. Accused further denied of having issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. Accused further denied of receiving the legal demand notice sent by the complainant through counsel.
7. Final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of Complainant as well as accused and written arguments were also filed by both the parties. Complete record has been perused carefully.
8. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
8.1. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and the evidence affidavit of the complainant and further argued that the accused has vaguely denied the liability towards the complainant. 8.2. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that accused deliberately refused to take the legal demand notice sent by complainant to him to avoid his legal liability towards the complainant. Ld. Counsel has further argued that accused has admitted that he was residing as tenant in the accommodation of complainant and has taken false plea of defence. He further argued that the presumption of section 139 and 118 of NI Act arise in favour of the complainant and accused has failed to rebut the same. He further argued that accused has not led any evidence to prove his defence Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.02.15
16:46:20
+0530
CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 4 of 14
9. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
9.1. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the present complaint is filed with ulterior motive to extort money from the accused. Ld. Counsel further argued that accsued with bona fide intentions admitted the fact that he was residing as tenant in the premises of the complainant and a small amount of arrears of rent was pending against him. Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant has filed false case against the accused since he himself stated in his evidence affidavit that accused was not paying the rent to him and there were arrears for the same then how is it possible for a prudent man to lend further amount of money to any person who is already having the liability towards him and it is further strange that he shall even let his relative to lend the money to the person who is not paying his rent for many months.
Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant has concocted a false story in order to mislead the court. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused has not issued the cheque in question to complainant and therefore he rightly denied his signatures on the cheque in question, therefore, the initial presumption of section 118 and 139 of the NI Act does not arise in favour of the complainant.
9.2. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that accused has been able to rebut the testimony of complainant and complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts in the absence of presumption of section 118 and 139 of NI Act in his favour since accused has not admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. 9.3. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that during the cross examination, complainant failed to state as to what was the exact rent and also admitted that he can not tell as to what was the actual arrears of rent due outstanding against the accsued. He further argued that complainant has failed to disclose as to when did accused come to him to demand the alleged loan in question and complainant did not mention in his complaint and evidence affidavit that he gave the alleged loan to accused on 11.01.20221 which he disclosed during his cross examination and it is a material contradiction. Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant failed to disclose as to how did he arrange the alleged loan amount which he allegedly gave to accused and he has also not got prepared any document at the time of giving alleged loan to accused. He Digitally signed NIDHI by NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 16:46:26 +0530 2023.02.15 CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 5 of 14 further argued that complainant has also not shown the alleged loan in his ITR despite the fact that he files the ITR.
9.4. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the cheque in question was not issued by the accused in order to discharge any liability and the same was left in the possession of the complainant when he locked the rented premises of accused wherein his belongings were kept including his cheque book when accused failed to pay the small amount of rent to him due to the demise of his mother. He further argued that complainant has forged the signatures of accused on the cheque in question and therefore the reason of the dishonour of cheque in question is "Signatures Differ". Ld. Counsel further argued that accused did not receive the legal demand notice allegedly sent by the complainant.
9.5. Ld. Counsel futher argued that the liability of the cheque amount was never due against the accused and accused never demanded the alleged loan from the complainant, therefore, the complainant could not disclose the date of demanding the loan by accused and date of giving the same to him in his evidence by way of affidavit as well as complaint and stated the false date of giving the loan to accused during his cross examination. Hence present complaint is liabile to be dismissed since accused has successfully discharged his burden to rebut the presumption of law in favour of complainant, if any raised.
10. Now, the foremost provision of law to settle the entire dispute/controversy between the parties herein is Sec. 138 of NI Act and the same is being reproduced hereinafter for the ready reference:-
"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may NIDHI extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained BALA in this section shall apply unless--Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date: 2023.02.15 16:46:31 +0530
CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 6 of 14
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "debt of other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
10.1. The essential ingredients in order to attract Sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881 are as following:
i) The cheque for an amount is issued by the drawer to the payee/complainant on a bank account being maintained by him.
ii) The said cheque is issued for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or liability.
iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid on account of insufficient amount to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
iv) The cheque is presented within 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.
v) within 30 days a legal demand notice is issued by the payee or the holder in due course to the drawer of the cheque on receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque.
vi) The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of the money as demanded in the legal demand notice to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the reciept of said notice.
vii) The debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is legally enforceable.
11. Now, coming to the facts of the present complaint case keeping in view the essential ingredients of section 138 of NI Act.
11.1. In this case, accused has not admitted his signatures on the cheque in NIDHI question, however, it is not in dispute that the cheque in question belongs to him BALA Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date: 2023.02.15 16:46:37 +0530 CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 7 of 14 of a bank account being maintained by him and he further denied the fact of filling up the cheque in question. Complainant has failed to examine the bank witness to prove the fact that the cheque in question bears the signatures of accused only. Therefore complainant has failed to prove essential ingredient(i) against the accused.
11.2. Further, accused has not admitted the fact of dishonour of cheque in question, however, keeping in view Section 146 of NI Act, another essential ingredients (iii) and
(iv) stand proved against the accused.
11.3. Now, w.r.t essential ingredients (v) and (vi), it is not in dispute that the address of accused provided by Complainant in records on which he had sent the legal demand notice, is correct and keeping in view Sec.27 of the General clauses Act,1897 as well as settled law in this regard in the case of C.C Alavi Haji Versus Palapetty Mudh. & Anr 2007 6 SCC 555 wherein it was categorically held that Section 27 of General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. Similar view has been taken the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subodh S. Salaskar Versus Jay Praksh M.Shah & Anr.(2008) 13 SCC 689. And in the case in hand, accused has failed to prove otherwise and vaguely denied the fact of receiving the legal demand notice sent to him by Complainant and Complainant has relied upon the computer generated tracking report for the speed post whcih shows the delivery to accused. Therefore the essential ingredients (v) and (vi) also stand proved.
12. Now coming to the last and the remaining core ingredient (ii) and (vii) of section 138 of NI Act as discussed in preceding Para 10.1 and the real issue of controversy herein i.e. whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of any debt or liability, whole or in part. Section 139 of the NI Act is germane to this and according to Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the Digitally signed NIDHI by NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.02.15 16:46:43 +0530 CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 8 of 14 cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In the case in hand, accused has not admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and also denied its particulars having been written by himself. He further denied the fact of giving the cheque in question to complainant to discharge any debt or liability, rather accused stated that complianant has misappropriated his cheque which was left in his rented accommodation along with his other belongings when complainant locked the premises upon his failure of paying rent to the complainant. Accused further alleged that it is the complainant who might have forged his signatures on the cheque in question since the same does not bear his signatures, therefore, the cheque in question returned unpaid for the reason "Signature Differ". Accused has further denied the alleged loan having been taken from the complainant. Further, complainant has failed to examine the drawee bank to prove the signatures of accused on the cheque in question or the cheque in question having been issued by the accused instructing the drawee bank to honour the amount mentioned in it. Therefore initial presumption of section 139 of NI Act does not arise in favour of the complainant which is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
139. Presumption in favour of holder.- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt, or other liability.
12.1. It is settled law now that once accused/drawer of the cheque admits his signatures on the cheque then the presumption of law as provided in Section 139 of NI Act has to be raised in favour of the holder of the cheque and it is explicit in the said provision that the said presumption shall remain untill contrary is proved. In K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr, (1999) 7 SCC 510, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:
"9. As the signature in 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.
Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption..." Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.02.15
16:46:47
+0530
CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 9 of 14
In the case in hand accused has not admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and also denied the fact of issuing the same in favour of the complainant. Now the point for consideration here is whether the fact of drawing the cheque in question by the accused is proved in the present case or not since accused has even denied his signatures on the cheque in question. Section 6 of NI Act defines cheque which says a "cheque" is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form. Section 7 of NI Act defines the term "Drawer" as the maker of a bill of exchange or cheque. Now, in the present case the cheque in question may not be called having been drawn by the accused since the same does not bear the signatures of accused as denied by the accused and complainant failed to lead any evidence to prove otherwise since the drawee bank was not even examined on behalf of complainant. Therefore the initial presumtion of section 139 of NI Act does not arise in favour of the compainant.
12.2. Further in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable in nature and for rebuttal of the same accused need not even step into the witness box as he can rebut the same by placing reliance on the material brought on record by the complainant. It is also a well settled legal position that the presumptions can be rebutted even by raising presumptions of fact and law on the basis of material available on record. It is further well settled that the standard required from the accused to prove his defence is preponderance of probabilities and accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts. Again in Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categoracally held as under:-
"10. The complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under NIDHI Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption. Before we refer to judgments of this Court considering Section 118 and 139, it is relevant to notice the general BALA Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date: 2023.02.15 16:46:52 +0530 CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 10 of 14 principles pertaining to burden of proof on an accused especially in a case where some statutory presumption regarding guilt of the accused has to be drawn."
12.3. Needless to mention herein that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque. Now, whether or not the accused has been able to rebut the said presumption is a question of fact which needs to be decided after appreciation of entire evidence led on behalf of both the parties in the light of guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned herein above and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, since the accused has not admitted his signatures on cheque in question, therefore the initial presumption in terms of Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act does not arise in favour of the complainant regarding existence of legally enforceable liabililty and also regarding issuance of cheque in question by the accused in favour of complainant in discharge of his aforesaid liability. And complainant had the burden to prove the said fact by leading any cogent and reliable evidence.
12.4. The accused has chosen not to examine himself as a witness or lead defence evidence, so, now it is to be seen in the light of cross-examination of the complainant and defences taken, whether accused is successful in dislodging the case of the complainant by bringing on record such facts/material/circumstances which could result the testimony/evidence of complainant into disbelief. Complainant has been unable to reveal the date of the alleged loan having been given to accused in his complaint and the evidence by way of affidavit. It is a matter of record and also admitted by complainant examined as CW-1 that there is no loan agreement or anything in writing qua the alleged loan in question despite the fact that accused was already allegedly defaulting in payment of rent. It is quite strange that complainant gave the alleged loan to accused and also let his relative to lend money to accused despite the fact that he was defaulting in paying rent to him since beginning and in his evidence by way of affidavit complainant stated that accused was having financial crises and he even could not pay the arrears of rent due. It is further quite unlikely that NIDHI BALA Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 11 of 14 Date:
2023.02.15 16:46:58 +0530 despite knowing the financial crises of the accused and also the fact that he is defaulting in payment of rent to him, complainant lent a huge amount of money to accsued without having anything in writing. Complainant on the one hand failed to reveal the date, month or year when accused demanded the alleged loan from him and on the other hand he stated the month and year which was not even mentioned in the complainat or the evidence affidavit of the complainant rather a different month and year is mentioned which is a material contradiction since a person is expected to at leat know as to when has he given loan to someone. Further, complainant also failed to disclose as to how did he arrange the amount in cash which he allegedly gave to accused. Complainant also failed to disclose as to whether he was having cash with him or he withdrew the amount from his bank account. It is also not disclosed by the complainant as to when did accused give him the cheque in question since in his evidence tendored by way of affidavit , he stated that he gave the alleged loan to accused and accused gave him the cheque. However, it is an admitted fact by the complainant that accused vacated his rented premises in April, 2021, then, on what occassion did the accused give cheque in question to complainant and if the accsued gave the cheque in question to complainant as a post dated cheque then why the said fact was not stated or disclosed by the complainant in his evidence affidavit.
13. In the case in hand complainant did not have the presumption of law in his favour under section 118 and 139 of NI Act since accused denied his signatures on the cheque in question, hence, the burden was on the complainant himself to prove that the cheque in question was drawn in his favour to discharge the liability of the cheque amount. However, complainant has miserably failed to do so since neither any loan agreement was filed to prove the loan in question nor any other document in this regard and it is admitted by complainant himself during his cross examnation.
14. The defence taken by accused has remained intact throughout the proceedings whenever his statement in this regard was recorded such as at the time of framing of notice, during cross examination of complainant and at the time of his statement NIDHI recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, 1973. On the other hand the version of complainant BALA CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 12 of 14 Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date:
2023.02.15 16:47:03 +0530 remained uncorroborated by any documentory proof for the same. It is unlikely that a person shall lend huge amount of money to someone who is already defaulting in payment of rent due to him. Again, the accused is only supposed to discharge his onus not beyond the reasonable doubt but on the principle of preponderance of probabilities which is again a settled position of law and it has been reitereted again and again through the precedents that the said appreciation depends upon the facts and circumstance of each and every case and no air tight formula can be adopted in order to ascertain as to whether accused has been successful in dislodging the testimony of complainant before the court.
14.1. On the aspects of preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another 2019) 18 SCC 106 and in various other rulings have time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. However, in the present case accused has not merely denied the liability but has proved the same by rebutting the testimony of complainant through his cross examination which led this court to believe that the non-existence of the consideration for which cheque in question is allegedly issued to complainant by accused, is so probable that any prudent man would consider the same in the facts and circumstances similar to the case in hand.
15. In the present case in hand keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case , the presumption of law as per section 118(a)and section 139 of NI Act do not arise in favour of complainant and complainant has failed to prove all the ingredients of section 138 of NI Act.
16. This Court has considered opinion that the complainant has been unable to prove his case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable NIDHI BALA CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 13 of 14 Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date:
2023.02.15 16:47:08 +0530 Instruments Act beyond reasonable doubts. Resultantly, the accused is, thus, stands aquitted for the said offence and the bail bond and surety bond furnished by him before this court during trail stands cancelled and surety stands discharged and he be returned his orginal document, if any, taken on record for the said purpose.
Digitally signed
NIDHI byDate:NIDHI BALA
BALA 2023.02.15
16:47:13 +0530
Announced in Open Court (NIDHI BALA)
today on 15.02.2023 MM (NI Act) Digital Court,
NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA
Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI BALA
Date:
BALA 2023.02.15
16:47:17
+0530
(NIDHI BALA)
MM (NI Act) Digital Court,
NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA/15.02.2023
CC No. 779/2021 Braham Singh Bhati Vs. Deepak Verma @ Neeraj Verma page no. 14 of 14