Delhi District Court
Ritu Jain vs Minakshi Sharma on 21 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANSHIKA MEHTA
JMFC (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-02 SHD/KKD/DELHI
CC no. 1294/2021
Unique Case ID No. DLSH02-005687-2021
In the matter of:-
Ms. Ritu Jain
W/o Sh. D.K Jain
R/o H. No. 183, 1st floor, ward no.3,
Parsvnath Apartments, Mehrauli, New Delhi-30
...........Complainant
Versus
Ms. Minakshi Sharma
W/o Sh. Sushil Sharma
R/o Khasra No. 555/2, Saran Area,
Road no.1, Silver Oak Lane,
Ghitorni, New Delhi-110030 .............Accused
Date of Institution : 02.08.2021
Offence Punishable Under Section : U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Date of filing : 28.07.2021
Date of Decision : 21.04.2025
Final Order: : Acquitted
Argued by: : Mr. S.K Jain, Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
: Mr. Kunal Soni, Ld. Counsel for
the accused.
Digitally signed by
VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16
16:58:59 +0530
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 1 of 15
JUDGMENT
"If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us." - Francis Bacon INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Accused is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" or "NI Act"). He was summoned by this court to face the trial vide order dated 04.10.2021.
2. Tersely put, it is the case of the complainant that the complainant and the accused shared a long-standing cordial relationship for over a decade, during which the complainant, extended financial help to the accused on two occasions through the transfer of gold valued at Rs.20 lacs in October 2014 and Rs.30 lacs in December 2015. Both transactions were formalized through duly executed and notarized loan agreements with corresponding post- dated security cheques. The complainant provided the gold upon the representation that it would be returned either in kind or through monetary repayment within five years. However, after the expiry of the agreed period in December 2020, the accused failed to return the loan and instead, in February 2021, issued five post-dated cheques bearing no.217205, 217206, 217207, 217208 and 217209 for an amount fo Rs. 10 Lacs each dated 11-01-2021, 10-02- 2021, 10-03-2021, 10-04-2021 and 10-05-2021 all of Rs.10 lakhs each drawn on Canara Bank, Ghitorni, New Delhi. Two of these cheques were presented but dishonoured due to the account being dormant.
Consequently, the complainant issued a legal demand notice on 27.02.2021 via registered speed post, demanding repayment within 15 days, which was duly delivered. Despite this, the accused failed to make payment within the statutory period.
3. The accused was summoned vide order dated 04.10.2021 and on 22.03.2023 notice was framed against the accused u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused admitted signature on the cheque in question and denied the handwriting of particulars on the cheque in question. She did not admit the receipt of the legal notice dt. 29.07.2021 but admitted the address mentioned on the legal notice as correct address.
Digitally signed by
VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16
16:59:13 +0530
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 2 of 15
The accused contended that she has not taken any money from the complainant. The cheques in question were issued as blank cheques, solely for the purpose of securing an LIC policy, as the complainant is an LIC agent. Additionally, the accused submitted that complainant obtained the accused's signature on certain blank documents. The accused further contended that she does not owe any money to the complainant and has no financial liability or obligation towards her.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE COMPLAINANT
4. The complainant in order to prove its case, examined Complainant as CW-1 examined in its evidence led before the court on 20.10.2023. CW-1 tendered in evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW-1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
I. Original loan agreement dt. 25.10.2024 Ex. CW1/A, II. Original loan agreement dt. 14.12.2015 alongwith promissory note which are Ex. CW1/B III. Original cheque which is Ex. CW1/C. IV. Cheque return memo which is Ex. CW1/D. V. Legal demand notice which is Ex. CW1/E. VI. Postal receipts which is Ex. CW1/F VII. Tracking report which is Ex. CW1/G. VIII. Copy of election card of Meenakshi which is Mark A. IX. Copy of Adhar Card which is Mark B. X. Copy of Marriage Card which is Mark C. Upon her cross-examination, complainant CW-1, inter alia, stated that she was an LIC agent and further, used to assist her husband, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain, in his business of tiles/marble trading. CW-1 confirmed that both she and her husband filed Income Tax Returns (ITR).
She testified that she had known the accused for at least 8-10 years before lending the alleged money. CW-1 could not the amount available in her bank account when the accused allegedly Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 16:59:22 +0530 Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 3 of 15 approached her for money. She mentioned that she may have been operating two bank accounts during that period, and both were still functional. However, she stated that she could not produce the bank statements for those accounts from the year 2014, as the bank would not provide them.
She did not remember the amount of cash she had in her possession when the accused approached her for the money. CW-1 testified that in 2014, she had been in possession of approximately 1.5 to 2 kilograms of gold/gold ornaments. Part of this gold had been received at the time of her marriage, and the remainder had been purchased between 2010 and 2011.
She claimed that she had given approximately 670 grams of gold to the accused initially, which had been weighed by a goldsmith from a nearby shop named "Radhika Jeweller." CW- 1 admitted that she did not possess any slip or documentation regarding the weight of the gold and voluntarily stated that she had given the slip to Meenakshi Sharma, who had accompanied her. She had not kept a copy for herself. The gold had been allegedly given in the form of gold pieces.
Regarding the cheque of Rs. 20 lakhs initially issued by the accused, CW-1 admitted that it had later been replaced by two cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each. She did not have a copy of the original cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs and did not remember the amount of cash or bank balance left after advancing the said gold loan.
She further deposed that she had given additional gold worth Rs. 30 lakhs to the accused in December 2015, weighing around 1 kilogram, again in the form of gold pieces. She testified that this gold had been purchased for her daughter Kashish Jain's marriage and that the accused was aware of this. CW-1 submitted invoices regarding this transaction, marked as Ex. CW1/X/A (colly). She stated that the original receipts were kept in CC No. 900/2021 and that the gold had been purchased in cash. She denied the suggestion that the invoices were forged and claimed that the jeweller who had issued them was known to her.
CW-1 confirmed that she had not provided any LIC-related services to Meenakshi or Aakash and did not remember if she had done LIC policies for their family members.
When shown a copy of an LIC policy in the name of Tarun Sharma (brother of Aakash Sharma) with Meenakshi as the nominee, issued in June 2014, with a premium of Rs. 3,860/-, Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 16:59:30 +0530 Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 4 of 15 marked as Ex. CW1/X1/A, she admitted that she did not remember issuing the same or doing LIC policies for other family members of the accused.
She also stated that she could not produce her ITRs from 2010 to 2014. When shown the policy premium slip marked as Ex. CW1/X2/A, she acknowledged that it bore her agent code. She did not recall since when she had been handling LIC policies for the accused and voluntarily added that she did not remember how many family members of the accused she had dealt with in this regard. She denied the suggestion that the cheque in question had been issued towards renewal of LIC policies of the accused's family.
CW-1 claimed to be aware of the purity of the gold allegedly given to the accused and had already submitted invoices for the same.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
5. Thereafter, on 07.10.2024, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., read with Section 281 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein the accused stated that the complainant had filed a false evidence affidavit (Ex. CW-1/1). It is stated that the loan agreement and promissory note marked as Ex. CW-1/A only bears the accused's signature on the loan agreement and not on the promissory note. Furthermore, the loan agreement and promissory note marked as Ex. CW-1/B do not bear the accused's signature at all.
The accused acknowledged having issued the cheque in question, marked as Ex. CW-1/C specifically for LIC purposes. The cheque return memo marked as Ex. CW-1/D is correct. The accused further submitted that she has not received the legal demand notice marked as Ex. CW-1/E and is unable to comment on the postal receipts marked as Ex. CW-1/F and the tracking report marked as Ex. CW-1/G. The election card marked as Mark A belongs to the accused; however, the signatures on the card are not the accused's. Similarly, the Aadhar Card marked as Mark B also belongs to the accused, but the accused has not signed it. The card Mark C pertains to the wedding of the accused's daughter. The accused cannot comment on the invoices marked as Ex. CW-1/X/A. The accused confirms that the LIC policy marked as Ex. CW-1/X1/A and the premium slip marked as Ex. CW-1/X2/A are correct. The accused further submitted that all the documents and cheques provided to the complainant were given for the purpose of LIC transactions.
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 5 of 15 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA Date: MEHTA 2025.04.16 16:59:40 +0530
The accused confirms that the LIC policy marked as Ex. CW-1/X1/A and the premium slip marked as Ex. CW-1/X2/A are correct. The accused further submits that all the documents and cheques provided to the complainant were given for the purpose of LIC transactions.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE DEFENCE
6. No evidence was presented in defense on behalf of the accused.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards repayment of the loan obtained by the accused. He further argued that the complainant gave gold to the accused with permission to liquidate the same. He has further argued that even if the accused's plea of misuse of cheque is to be believed to be true, than why the accused has not made any complainant of misuse of the said cheques at any PS or to the bank. He has further contended that accused has admitted her signatures on the cheque in question. He further argued that the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption of law in favour of the complainant and accordingly, she is liable to be convicted.
8. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant has not produced any document to show her income, but has been accumulating gold. He has further argued that even if the argument of the complainant is to be believed that she has advanced loan by way gold, then no slip of weight from goldsmith has been furnished to show the weight of the gold advanced to the accused. further, complainant has not produced her ITR to show her financial capacity to buy such an amount of gold.
ANATOMY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS THEREON LEGAL JURISPRUDENCE
9. So far so good. Having considered all the submissions, it is apposite to have a quick glance at relevant position of law. Section 138 of the Act provides as under:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. --
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 6 of 15 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 16:59:50 +0530 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 provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--(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 or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.]
10. It is a well-established principle of law that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) provides for two critical presumptions--one under Section 118 and the other under Section 139.
Section 118 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, until proven otherwise, that every negotiable instrument has been made or drawn for consideration. This presumption places the onus on the party challenging the instrument to disprove this presumption of consideration.
Section 139 of the Act further provides that, unless proven otherwise, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of, in whole or in part, any debt or liability. This creates a strong legal presumption in favor of the complainant, especially in cases involving dishonored cheques.
APPLICATION OF LAW
11. Applying the aforesaid law at hand to the facts of the case, the accused during framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 22.03.2023, admitted her signature on the cheque. Thus, signature Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 7 of 15 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 17:00:00 +0530 on the cheque is an undisputed fact. However, the accused has denied the execution of particulars of the cheque. A careful examination of the Negotiable Instruments Act's provisions, particularly Sections 20, 87, and 139, makes it abundantly evident that whoever signs a cheque and gives it to the payee is still accountable unless he provides proof to refute the assumption that the cheque was written to settle a debt or release a liability. In the event that the drawer has properly signed the cheque, it makes no difference who filled it out. The criminal provisions of Section 138 would apply if the cheque was otherwise legitimate. 1 Thus, it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.2
12. Suffice to say, the presumption qua the existence of legal liability as prescribed u/s 139 of the NI Act is liable to be attracted in the present case.
Now, the effect of the presumption, in that sense, is to transfer the evidential burden on the accused of proving that the cheque was not received by the bank towards the discharge of any liability. Until this evidential burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true, without expecting the complainant to do anything further.
13. It is worthwhile to note that the standard of proof to discharge this evidential burden is not as heavy as that usually seen in situations where the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of an Accused. The Accused is not expected to prove the non-existence of the presumed fact beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused must meet the standard of 'preponderance of probabilities', similar to a Defendant in a civil proceeding.3
14. Hence, it has to be seen as to whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption of law on a scale of preponderance of probabilities during the course of the trial or not.
DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE 1Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983.
2Bir singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197.
3Rangappa v. Mohan, MANU/SC/0376/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 1898.
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 8 of 15
Digitally signed
VANSHIKA by VANSHIKA
MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16
17:00:10 +0530
Relevant Provisions of Law
15. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines a promissory note as:
"An instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument."
Thus, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 includes instruments such as promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques.
16. A perusal of Section 118 of the Act states, inter alia, that:
"Until the contrary is proved, the presumption shall be made 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."
However, this presumption applies only once the execution of the promissory note is admitted by the accused.
Facts of the Present Case
17. At the stage of admission and denial under Section 294 CrPC, the accused was questioned:
"Do you admit the promissory notes Ex. CW1/A (colly) and Ex. CW1/C (colly)?"
Answer: "No, I have signed blank papers only."
18. Thus, the signature on Ex. CW1/A (colly) stands admitted. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In such a case, the burden lies upon the accused to prove that no consideration was involved.
19. Further, the accused admitted her signatures on the friendly loan agreements Ex. CW1/A (colly) and Ex. CW1/B (colly), but contended that she had only signed blank papers. During examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused submitted that the loan agreement Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 9 of 15 Digitally signed VANSHIKA by VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 17:00:21 +0530 and promissory note marked as Ex. CW1/A bore her signature only on the loan agreement and not on the promissory note. Additionally, she asserted that Ex. CW1/B bore no signatures of hers at all.
20. It is well-settled that the degree of proof expected from an accused is not as strict as that from a complainant. The accused can discharge her burden by creating reasonable doubt in the complainant's case. Therefore, if the accused is able to demonstrate, on a preponderance of probabilities, that no debt or liability existed as claimed, the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act disappears.
21. Thus, two primary questions arise:
1. Whether the accused has successfully discharged her evidential burden so as to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act?
2. Whether, in the absence of such presumption, the complainant has independently proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability?
Cross-Examination of CW-1
22. During cross-examination, CW-1 deposed as follows:
Initially, she had given approximately 670 grams of gold to the accused, weighed by a goldsmith from "Radhika Jewellers." However, she admitted she did not possess any slip or documentation for the same, having allegedly handed it over to Meenakshi Sharma.
Subsequently, in December 2015, she gave additional gold worth approximately Rs.30 lakhs (about 1 kilogram) to the accused, again in gold pieces.
CW-1 produced invoices marked as Ex. CW1/X/A (colly) to support the claim, stating that the gold had been purchased in cash.
She denied the suggestion that the invoices were forged.
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 10 of 15
Digitally signed by
VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16
17:00:32 +0530
23. However, certain crucial gaps remain:
The cheque mentioned in the loan agreement is different from the impugned cheque.
The original cheque for Rs.20 lacs has not been placed on record.
The complainant admitted that the original cheque was replaced by two cheques of Rs.10 lacs each but failed to produce copies of the original cheque or explain its absence.
24. Further, it is notable that the complainant's loan agreement does not mention any advancement of gold. When questioned, CW-1 failed to explain why such a material fact was omitted.
Advancement of Loan
25. The complainant alleged advancing gold worth Rs.50 lacs but failed to substantiate:
No precise weight or value of the gold given has been specified.
No documentation evidencing the advancement of gold of such significant weight and amount has been filed.
The loan agreements relied upon do not mention the advancement of gold nor do they relate to the present impugned cheque.
There is nothing on record to show how gold worth exactly Rs.50 lacs was advanced.
No calculation has been provided to establish whether the valuation of the gold allegedly advanced to the accused corresponds to the amount mentioned in the cheque in question.
26. Thus, at the first instance, this Court finds it difficult to accept the complainant's claim regarding the alleged advancement of a gold loan.
Once the learned counsel for the accused extensively cross-examined the CW - 1 on the point Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 11 of 15 Digitally signed VANSHIKA by VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 17:00:40 +0530 of advancement of the loan -- specifically regarding the weight, purity, and quantity of gold
-- the burden of proof shifted upon the complainant.
27. It would not be wrong to say that the entire case of the complainant hinges upon the alleged advancement of the gold loan. Once questions have been put to the complainant which create serious doubts about her credibility, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove:
how much gold was advanced, the exact quantity and purity of the gold advanced, and that the gold purchased through the invoices Ex. CW1/X/A (colly) produced was the same gold allegedly advanced to the accused.
28. The Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that no specific suggestions were put by the accused during cross-examination of CW-1. However, this Court is of the firm view that it is not necessary for the accused to put specific suggestions to CW-1 on every individual point to shift the burden of proof.
29. If, during the cross-examination of CW-1, the accused posed questions that CW-1 was unable to answer satisfactorily, that, by itself, is sufficient to shift the burden of proof upon CW-1 to substantiate her answers given during cross-examination.
Financial Capacity of the Complainant
30. The complainant has failed to demonstrate her financial capacity4:
No bank statements or records have been placed on record despite her admission of maintaining bank accounts.
No Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the relevant period have been filed.
No receipt or documentation from the jeweller about the gold transaction has been submitted.
4John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236). Digitally signed
VANSHIKA by VANSHIKA
MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16
17:00:51 +0530
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 12 of 15
Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, can be rebutted by showing that the complainant lacked the capacity to advance the amount in question.5 Given the absence of financial documentation, the complainant's claim is severely undermined.
Purpose of Issuance of Cheques
31. The accused has asserted that the cheques in question were issued in relation to LIC policies (Ex. CW1/X1/A) managed by the complainant.
In support of this defence:
Premium receipts bearing the complainant's LIC agent code have been produced.
It is thus plausible that blank signed cheques were handed over for the purpose of managing LIC policy payments, and not towards repayment of any gold loan.
32. It is a settled principle that the accused can rely on the material elicited during the complainant's own evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
33. During the cross-examination of CW-1, it was revealed that once the accused furnished the LIC policy documents, the said policy mentioned the date of commencement as 28.06.2014.
CW-1 admitted that the accused and her family members were known to her in connection with LIC policies. She further admitted that:
She had not provided LIC-related services to Meenakshi or Aakash Sharma and did not remember if she had handled LIC policies for other family members.
When shown a copy of an LIC policy issued in the name of Tarun Sharma (brother of Aakash Sharma) with Meenakshi as nominee, issued in June 2014 with a premium of Rs.3,860/-, marked as Ex. CW1/X1/A, CW-1 could not confirm or deny whether she had arranged the said policy.
5Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418. Digitally signed VANSHIKA by VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 17:01:03 +0530 Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 13 of 15 She admitted that she could not produce her Income Tax Returns (ITRs) from 2010 to 2014 to substantiate her financial dealings, further weakening her credibility.
When shown the premium slip marked as Ex. CW1/X2/A, CW-1 acknowledged that it bore her LIC agent code, clearly establishing her role as an LIC agent dealing with the accused's family.
34. Significantly, CW-1 could not recall when she had started handling LIC policies for the accused and was uncertain about how many family members were covered through her agency.
Although CW-1 denied the suggestion that the blank cheques were issued towards LIC policy management, the admissions and the material produced on record significantly dilute the credibility of the complainant's case.
Misuse of Cheques and Absence of Complaint
35. The complainant argued that the accused did not lodge a complaint about the alleged misuse of cheques. However, the absence of a police complaint is not fatal when the defence is otherwise credible. Even in the absence of a complaint regarding misuse, the defence can be accepted if circumstances so justify.6 In the present case, considering the overall probabilities, the accused has successfully raised doubts about the complainant's case.
DECISION
36. It is axiomatic that the degree of proof expected from the accused is not as rigorous as that of the complainant. He could discharge his onus by making dents in the case of the complainant. Therefore, once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/ liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not haunt the accused any longer.
37. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/ liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in 6M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39. Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16 17:01:15 +0530 Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 14 of 15 dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act does not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.7
38. Having considered the conspectus of facts in the present case, the testimony of CW-1, in toto, reveals material inconsistencies that strike at the substratum of her case. This court is not oblivious of the fact that there exists a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant regarding existence of liability, however, it is well settled that such presumption is rebuttable in nature. Merely because the cheque was issued from an account maintained by the accused or that the accused admits signature on the cheque, would not invite the culpability under Section 138 of the NI Act.
39. Upon comprehensive consideration of the evidence, the accused has been able to create a dent in the complainant's story and has further raised strong suspicion about the case put forth by the complainant. The accused has demonstrated, on the preponderance of probabilities, that she owes no debt or liability towards the complainant.
40. Accordingly, in view of the above observations and principles of law, I am of the considered opinion that the accused has rebutted the presumption in favor of the complainant and has raised a probable defense. The complainant has not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused, and accordingly, the accused deserves to be acquitted.
Accordingly, this court hereby acquits the accused Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of cheque in question.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused against receiving.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.04.2025 Present judgment consists of 15 pages and each page bears my initials.
Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2025.04.16
17:01:25 +0530
(VANSHIKA MEHTA)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
SHD/KKD/Delhi/21.04.2025
7Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa MANU/SC/0502/2019.
Case no. 1294/2021 Ritu Jain vs. Meenakshi Sharma 15 of 15