Delhi District Court
Mohd. Shamim Khan vs Realty Applications on 3 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI ACT)-05, RACC
At New Delhi, NEW DELHI
(Presided Over by Ms. Nishi Jindal, DJS)
C.C. No. 7714/2020
PS : Parliament Street
CNR No.DLND020122642020
Mohd Shamim Khan
R/o 75-T, DDA Flats,
Sector 7, Jasola,
Delhi - 110025.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s. Realty Applications
Through its signatory / partners / proprietor
Sh. Satish Kumar
Office at UGF 12A, Block A, Omaxe
Gurgaon Mall, Sohna Road,
Gurugram, Haryana-122018. .......... Accused
Date of Institution 14.09.2020
Offence complained of 138 NI Act
Date of decision 03.03.2025
Plea of guilt Not guilty
Decision Conviction
C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 1/16
Digitally signed
NISHI by NISHI
JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03
14:51:49 +0530
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present complaint case instituted by the Complainant invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(as in after referred to as 'NI Act').
2. The accused hereinabove mentioned has been summoned to face trial under Section 138 NI Act on the complaint filed by Mohd Shamim Khan (hereinafter referred as 'complainant'). It is alleged in the complaint that accused M/s. Realty Applications Through its signatory / partners / proprietor Sh. Satish Kumar (hereinafter referred as 'accused') who used to deal in properties, sale and purchase as broker / channel partner approached the complainant's son namely Mohd. Farhan in the month of November 2019 for purchasing a flat i.e. A-1403, Godrej Aria, Sector 79, Gurgaon - 122051 for sale consideration amount of Rs. 97,99,986/-. Upon visiting the property, the same was purchased in the name of complainant, his son and daughter in law Ms. Aashna Akhtar on the condition that the accused will give Rs. 1,90,000/- as the accused was supposed to get commission / share from Channel Partner / Developers / Builder. The complainant made the full payment of Rs. 97,99,986/- inclusive of TDS by 29.05.2020 and got the possession of said flat on 30.06.2020. Consequently, the accused issued two post-dated cheques on 07.12.2019 in the name of complainant and his son. To discharge his liability, the accused issued the cheque bearing no. 000259 dated 10.04.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank amounting to Rs. 90,000/-. Complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for collection, to its banker but the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused with the remarks "Account Closed". Thereafter, complainant got issued a legal notice dated 20.07.2020 which was duly sent however, accused has not made any payment of C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 2/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 Date:
14:51:53 +0530 the amount within stipulated period. Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed.
Pre Trial Procedure:-
3. The complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.
CW-1/A and relied upon following evidences: -
a) Cheque in question is Ex. CW1/1
b) Return memo dated 26.06.2020 is Ex. CW1/2
c) Legal demand notice dated 20.07.2020 is Ex.CW1/3 d) Postal Receipt is Ex. CW1/4
e) Tracking report is Mark C
f) Whatsapp screenshot is Mark B
g) E-mail dated 21.07.2020 is Mark A
h) Visiting Card alongwith the letter / undertaking dated 07.12.2019 is Ex. CW1/8 (Colly)
i) Possession letter is Ex. CW1/5
j) Car Parking allocation letter is Ex. CW1/6
k) Keys handover letter is Ex. CW1/7
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and notice under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') was served upon him on 21.03.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The accused took the defence that the cheque in question was never issued to the complainant by him for any transaction whatsoever. He has never dealt with the complainant and he even does not know who the complainant is.
C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 3/16Digitally signed by NISHI NISHI Date:
JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 14:51:57 +0530 Further, the account number mentioned on the cheque was his earlier service account and the same has already been closed by him after implementation of GST. He denied having any legal liability towards the complainant for the amount mentioned in the cheque in question. He further denied that the cheque bears his signatures or the signatures of his staff as he never had any correspondence with the complainant.
5. Thereafter, an oral application of the accused under Section 145 (2) of NI Act was allowed vide order dated 21.03.2023 and the accused was granted the opportunity to cross examine the complainant as well as his witnesses, if any.
6. The complainant was examined as CW-1. In the post-summoning evidence, the complainant (CW1) adopted his pre-summoning evidence. The complainant was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
Thereafter, evidence was closed by the complainant on 06.04.2024.
Statement of accused :-
7. Accused was, thereafter, examined U/s 281 r/w Sec 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2024, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to her.
The accused took the defence that he does not know the complainant and has never dealt with him. He denied having issuing the cheque in question or signing the same by filling the particulars upon it. He further denied having any business dealings with the complainant and alleged that the complainant has lodged a false and fabricated case against him. It was his manager Sh. Nitish Kumar who used to deal with the complainant in regards of pre booking of the said flat. Further, the complainant never visited his premises nor any written assurance was issued by his behalf to the complainant. The alleged booking was C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 4/16 Digitally signed by NISHI NISHI Date:
JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 14:52:01 +0530 taken by him on behalf of the freelancer who assured the complainant that his firm will book the flat for him, however, the alleged freelancer is not my employee and was not working on my instruction. He denied receiving the legal demand notice from the complainant.
Defence Evidence:-
8. The accused chose not to lead Defence Evidence. Accordingly, the same was closed vide order dated 04.10.2024. The matter was, thereafter, fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have ruminated over the case file thoroughly.
10. The following points required determination in the present case.
(i) Whether the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is made out against the accused.
(ii) Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant is duty bound to prove the following ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Aparna A. Shah v M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd &Anr. (2013)8 SCC 7.
"9. It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
a) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
b) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 5/16
NISHI Digitally signed by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2025.03.03 14:52:06 +0530
c) that 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;
d) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
e) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
f) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice"
12. The Act also raises certain presumptions i.e. one contained in Section 118
(a) of the Act and other in Section 139 thereof. Section 118 (a) raises presumption as to Negotiable Instrument, until the contrary is proved the following presumption shall be made: -
Section 118 of the N.I Act provides:
"Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"
Section 139 of the N.I Act further provides as follows:
"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".
Section 146 of NI Act provides that:
"Bank's slip prima facie evidence of certain facts. -- The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 6/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 Date:
14:52:10 +0530 been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved."
13. However, in N.S. Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala 2006 (6) SCC 39, while dealing with the aspect of presumption in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumption under Section 118 (a) and 139 of the Act are rebuttable and the standard of proof required for such rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was further observed that in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act that, whenever it is provided by the Act that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard the said fact as proved unless and until it is disproved.
Applying the said definition of proved and disproved to the principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstance of the particular case, to act upon supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption what is needed is to raise a probable defence.
The standard of proof evidently is preponderance of probability. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material on record but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
Therefore, rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before Court in support of defence, the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable. The standard of reasonableness being that of the "Prudent Man".
C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 7/16 Digitally signedNISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03 14:52:14 +0530
14. In this way from the combined reading of both these sections, two kinds of presumptions are raised i.e. one regarding the fact that the cheque was drawn for some consideration and that the same was held by the holder in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability. It is a mandatory presumption, though the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.
15. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that there exists a legally enforceable liability on behalf of the accused towards the complainant. He further argued that the cheque in question Ex. CW1/1 was issued to the complainant in discharge of the liability. He further argued that upon presentation the cheque was dishonoured and the same has been proved by the cheque return memo Ex. CW1/2. Further, Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that legal demand notice Ex. CW1/3 was sent to the accused and the same was duly served upon the accused. Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that all the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are fulfilled and accordingly, the accused should be convicted.
16. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that he had never issued the cheque in question nor it bears his signature and hence, he has no legal liability towards the complainant. He further argued that the essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act have not been satisfied in the present complaint in order to constitute a valid complaint. He prayed that the accused be acquitted of the offence.
C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 8/16 Digitally signedNISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03 14:52:18 +0530 FINDINGS-
FIRST DEFENCE: - NON-RECEIPT OF LEGAL NOTICE
17. It has contended by the accused that he did not receive the legal notice which is a necessary requirement under section 138 of NI Act. As per law, Section 114 of Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to communications sent by post and it enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act envisages that when a registered notice is posted, it is presumed to have been served unless rebuttal is given. In the present case, no evidence in rebuttal has been led by the accused.
18. In CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: -
"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along-with the copy of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s. 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
Further, in the present case, the accused has himself admitted in his notice framed under section 251 Cr.P.C that the address mentioned on the legal notice is correct though, he had vacated the same in November, 2019. Moreover, the accused has not placed on record any evidence to the contrary to prove the non- receipt of the legal notice. The complainant has also placed on record the tracking report Mark C with the remark "Delivery Confirmed".
C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 9/16 Digitally signedNISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03 14:52:22 +0530 Thus, in view of the above-mentioned dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and discussion, this court holds that the legal notice Ex. CW1/3 dated 20.07.2020 was served on accused.
SECOND DEFENCE:- DISPUTING THE SIGNATURE ON THE CHEQUE IN QUESTION
19. The accused has contended that the cheque in question does not bear his signatures as he had never issued the same to the complainant. However, he admitted that the account number as mentioned on the impugned cheque was his earlier service account but the same has been closed by him after implementation of GST.
In this regard, the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs State of Gujarat & Ors, (2012) 13 SCC 375 wherein not only the cases of dishonour of cheques on account of insufficiency of funds or on account of exceeding of arrangement but the cases involving dishonour of cheques on account of "stop payment" and "account closed" have also been brought within the ambit of offence under the aforesaid provision.
Hence, it is clear that the accused cannot escape from his liability if the cheque has been dishonored due to the reason of 'Account Closed'. Therefore, this contention of the accused is liable to be rejected.
20. As far as the contention of the accused disputing his signature on the impugned cheque is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the accused has not placed on record any document substantiating the fact that that the signature upon the same do not belong to him. It has been recently held by the Hon'ble C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 10/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 Date:
14:52:26 +0530 Supreme Court in the case titled as Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Another 2024 INSC 63, that-
"16. Thus, we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque."
Significantly, the accused has neither summoned the bank witness nor procured a copy of his specimen signatures to give evidence in his favour. Moreover, no suggestions have been put forth by the accused at the time of cross examination of the complainant regarding the dispute of his signatures. Noteworthy, the reason for dishonour of the cheque in question is not 'Drawer's signature differs' rather it is 'Account Closed'. Mere bald averments and assertions are not sufficient to rebut the presumptions laid down under NI Act.
Hence, in view of the above discussion of law and in the absence of the evidence in contrary, the contention of the accused that the cheque in question does not bear his signatures is also liable to be dismissed.
THIRD DEFENCE: - NO LEGALLY RECOVERABLE DEBT/ LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED TO PAY
21. Another defence of the accused is that there is no legally recoverable debt or liability in favour of the complainant as no written agreement was executed between the parties with respect to the commission amount earned by the accused from the sale of the flat. Per contra, the complainant has stated that as per Ex. CW1/8, one Mr. Nitish who was a staff member of the accused firm C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 11/16 Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03 14:52:30 +0530 assured them that the total commission amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- would be paid to the complainant upon successful booking of the flat.
Perusal of Ex. CW1/8 reveals that along with the agreement between the complainant and Mr. Nitish, his visiting card/Identity card has also been enclosed. The same states that Mr. Nitish Kumar worked as a Manager-Sales in M/s Realty Applications i.e. accused firm. Also, Ex. CW1/8 has been signed by Mr. Nitish acknowledging the payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- as commission to the complainant. The complainant has remained firm on his testimony regarding Ex. CW1/8. Relevant portion of cross examination of CW-1 dated 06.04.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-
"There was a written document pertaining to payment of Rs. 1,90,000/-. At this stage, witness is shown document (earlier mark E) and now Ex. CW1/8 (OSR). This document was executed in the office M/s Godrej Arya. The cheque in question was received by me on 07.12.2019 after signing the same by the accused Mr. Satish Kumar in my presence and handed over by Sh. Nitish (Sales Manager of accused) in the office of M/s Godrej Arya."
An objection regarding the suggestion put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the accused with respect to location of M/s Godrej Arya and accused was raised, however, the same stands dismissed on the ground of relevancy. Thus, it is manifest that the testimony of the complainant has been persistent and uncontroverted.
22. Furthermore, the accused has contended that he had received only an amount of Rs. 1,00.000/- and not Rs. 1,90,000/- as alleged by the complainant. However, no evidence either by way of oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the accused in support of this contention. Moreover, the accused has also not stepped into the witness box to testify and put forth his version of facts on oath. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as V.S. Yadav v. Reena, 172 (2010) DLT 561 that-
C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 12/16 Digitally signedNISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 Date:
14:52:35 +0530 "It must be borne in mind that the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful. In the present case, the accused in his statement stated that he had given cheques as security. If the accused wanted to prove this, he was supposed to appear in the witness box and testify and get himself subjected to cross examination. His explanation that he had the cheques as security for taking loan from the complainant but no loan was given should not have been considered by the Trial Court as his evidence and this was liable to be rejected since the accused did not appear in the witness box to dispel the presumption that the cheques were issued as security. Mere suggestion to the witness that cheques were issued as security or mere explanation given in the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. P.C., that the cheques were issued as security, does not amount to proof."
It was further held in that case that-
"Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act. If mere statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. or under Section 281 Cr. P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/ prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued once."
Hence, mere statement under section 251 or 313 Cr.P.C are not adequate to rebut the presumptions laid down under NI Act.
23. Thus, keeping in mind the above discussion of law, discrepancies and shortcomings of the accused, the court is of the considered opinion that the accused has failed to discharge the onus placed upon him to rebut the mandatory presumptions which are in favour of the complainant and thus, is C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 13/16 Digitally signed by NISHI NISHI JINDAL Date: JINDAL 2025.03.03 14:52:39 +0530 unable to prove that no legally enforceable debt existed at the relevant time between the parties.
24. The accused has also claimed at the time of final arguments that the cheque in question was stolen from his possession. Mere assertion of the accused that the cheque in question was stolen is not sufficient to discharge him from his onus. Further, no legal remedies have been sought by the accused against the complainant in order to recover his cheques. This is further substantiated by the fact the he did not lodge any police complaint regarding the stolen cheques once he got to know of their theft.
It is expected from a reasonable and prudent man that upon the discovery of such theft, he ought to have reported the same to the authorities. He neither informed the police authorities nor intimated the same to his bank for stopping payment on the impugned cheque. This conduct of the accused does not aid him in rebutting the presumptions laid down by NI Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case titled as Sanjay Gupta vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi CRL.REV.P. 326/2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that-
"In the instant case, the revisionist has taken different stands with regard to the cheque in question. It was stated that the cheque in question was lost and a complaint in this regard was also lodged in the year 2014 but the original complaint has not been placed on record by the revisionist. The revisionist neither informed the concerned bank about the cheque in question, which got stolen nor requested the bank to get the payment stopped against the said cheque, which shows his malafides. The revisionist has also taken the plea that the cheque in question was handed over to one Pankaj Bhalla and the same got stolen. However, the said fact was not revealed by the revisionist at the time of framing of notice on 19.02.2018. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the revisionist neither stated that he had handed over the cheque in question to Pankaj Bhalla nor that the cheque in question went missing from the possession of Pankaj Bhalla. The said Pankaj Bhalla in his deposition has also failed to state as to when the cheque in question was handed over to him by the revisionist and when and how the same got stolen. As far as the C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 14/16 Digitally signed by NISHI NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03 14:52:43 +0530 contention of the Ld. counsel for the revisionist that he is a stranger to the respondent No. 2 and that he has no legal liability towards him, is concerned, the revisionist has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant and the mere statement by the revisionist in itself is insufficient to raise suspicion with regards to the entire case of prosecution."
Thus, it is clear from the above proposition of law and bare reading of the provision that mere bald averment and allegations by the accused are not sufficient rather he has to prove by way of cogent evidences in his favour to rebut the same by proving that he had no legal liability towards the complainant which has not been done in the present case.
25. On the other hand, the complainant has stood firm on its testimony throughout the trial on all aspects with respect to the outstanding dues payable. Thus, this court is of the view that there existed legal liability of the accused to pay the complainant qua the amount mentioned in the cheque in question on the date of presentation of the cheque in question and the accused has miserably failed to rebut the reverse onus that is cast upon him.
Thus, the presumptions as laid down under the NI Act have remain unrebutted and uncontroverted in the present matter.
26. Having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint and evidence on file, it is held that cheque Ex. CW1/1 was issued by accused in favour of complainant for discharging his legally enforceable liability. Said cheque on presentation with bank was dishonoured, whereupon legal notice was issued to accused by complainant calling upon him to make payment, however, he did not C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 15/16 Digitally signed by NISHI NISHI JINDAL Date:
JINDAL 2025.03.03
14:52:47
+0530
make payment of amount of cheque and thus committed offence under Section 138 of the Act.
27. In view of the above dicta and discussion, it is clear that accused has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption in favour of the holder in due course/complainant and in absence of probable defence, the accused namely Satish Kumar proprietor of M/s. Realty Applications is held guilty for punishable under section 138 NI Act and resultantly convicted under Section 138 NI Act in the present case.
Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence. Copy of this Judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost as per rules.
Digitally signedNISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.03.03 14:52:50 +0530 Pronounced in Open Court. (Nishi Jindal) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dated: 03.03.2025 RACC, NDD Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed NISHI by NISHI JINDAL JINDAL 2025.03.03 Date:
14:52:54 +0530 (Nishi Jindal) Judicial Magistrate First Class, RACC, NDD C.C. No 7714/2020 Mohd Shamim Khan vs. M/s. Realty Applications Page No. 16/16