Delhi District Court
In Re: Sunita Devi vs Ravinder Kumar on 1 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIDHI BALA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NI ACT DIGITAL COURT, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOMA COURT, DELHI.
IN RE: SUNITA DEVI VERSUS RAVINDER KUMAR
1. Complaint Case no. : 375/2021
2. Date of Institution of case : 13.05.2021
3. Name of the complainant : Smt. Sunita Devi
W/O Late Sh. Ved Prakash
R/O A-117, Main Road, Maujpur
Delhi-110053.
4. Name of Accused person, : Sh. Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Sharajeet
R/O H.No. 170/B-3, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi-110053.
Also At:-
Lakshya Public School, Vill-Pali,
Baghpat, U.P.
5. Offence complained of : Section 138 NI Act
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date of judgment : 01.03.2023
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.
2. Factual matrix of the case:-
2.1 It is alleged by the Complainant that accused was a family friend and well known to her as well as her husband and had visiting terms and in the third week of August 2020, accused approached the complainant and asked her to lend him a friendly loan of Rs.
CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 1 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.03.01
16:46:04 +05'30'
10,00,000/-(Ten Lacs) as he needed the same due to some financial problems. On the continuous requests and considering the friendly relations with accused and also after the assurance of the accused to return the said amount on time, complainant gave him the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs).
2.2. In the second week of February 2021 accsued approached the complainant and in order to discharge his above said liability, accused issued a cheque bearing no. 693994 dated 16.02.2021 for the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Rajghat Power House, New Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter "the cheque in question") and assured the complainant that the said cheque shall be honoured on its presentation.
2.3 On 17.02.2021 complainant presented the cheque in question in his bank account being maintained at Axis Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch, Delhi (within the jurisdiction of this court). However the said cheque in question was returned unpaid / dishonored for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement" vide cheque return memo dated 18.02.2021.
2.4 On 15.03.2021, Complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 10.03.2021 to accused through her 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 accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount despite service of notice and therefore, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
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 dtd. 16.08.2021 and accused appeared accordingly. On 21.12.2021 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 admitted his signature upon the cheque in question and the fact of handing over the same to complainant but only as security and he further stated that he has already returned the alleged loan to the complainant after receiving the legal demand notice. Accused admitted certain facts such as drawing the cheque in question, fact of dishonour of the cheque in question and the fact of receiving the legal demand notice sent by complainant to CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 2 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:46:18 +05'30' him through counsel and accordingly his statement Under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded. The plea of accused is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"I had taken the friendly loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from complainant and given the cheque in question signed in blank to her as a security. However, after receiving the legal demand notice sent by complainant to me, I made the complete payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant by way of cheque and I have my account statement for proving the same. At present I do not owe the liability of cheque in question or any other liability as alleged in the complaint towards the complainant. I do not want to say anything else."
4. The accused was then allowed to cross examine the complainant on the oral request of Ld. Counsel for the accused since accused had the plausible defence and the same was consequently done.
5. EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT:
5.1 In Complainant's evidence, the complainant (CW-1) tendered her evidence affidavit in post summoning evidence (as the solitary witness) and relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. CW-1/A : Evidence of complainant by way of affidavit.
ii) Ex. CW-1/1: Original Cheque bearing no.693994 dated 16.02.2021 for the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Rajghat Power House, New Delhi ( Signatures on the cheque admitted by accused at the time of framing notice as well as his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C)
iii) Ex. CW-1/2: Original Cheque Return Memo dtd. 18.02.2021 (Admitted by accused at the time of his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C)
iv) Ex. CW-1/3: Statutory Legal demand notice dtd. 10.03.2021 sent on 15.03.2021 by Complainant to accused through counsel (Admitted by accused at the time of framing notice as well as his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
v) Ex. CW-1/4, Ex. CW-1/5, Ex. CW-1/6 and Ex.CW-1/7: Two Postal receipts and Internet generated tracking reports of speed posts respectively.(Admitted by accused at the time of framing notice as well as his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
vi) Ex. CW-1/8: Returned envelope of legal demand notice from one of the address of accused( Fact of receiving the legal demand notice CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 3 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date: BALA 2023.03.01 16:46:32 +05'30' is admitted by accused at the time of framing notice as well as his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
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 of having any existing liability and further stated that he has already paid the alleged loan in question to the complainant. Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
7. EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED:
7.1. In Defence Evidence, accused got himself examined as DW-1 and relied on the following documents:-
i) Ex. DW-1/A(OSR): Record slip of cheque book of accused qua four security cheques given to husband of complainant which includes the cheque in question allegedly misused by the complianant despite receiving the alleged loan amount through another cheque bearing no. 277339 dated 17.07.2021.
ii) Ex. DW-1/B: Attested copy of bank statement of accused showing the entry of Rs. 10,00,000/- transferred to the account of complainant through cheque bearing no. 277339 dated 17.07.2021.
8. Final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of Complainant as well as accused. However, none of the parties filed written arguments despite giving opportunity for the same. Complete record has been perused carefully.
9. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
9.1. 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 admitted his signatures upon the cheque in question as well as the loan in question and has vaguely denied the liability towards the complainant on the false pretext of repayment of the said loan to the complainant. Ld. Counsel further argued that once the cheque in question is admitted by the accused then Section 139 of NI Act clearly comes in the favour of the complainant and accused has the reverse onus to prove otherwise. Ld. Counsel further argued that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- paid to the complainant by the CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA NIDHI BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:46:42 +05'30' accused through cheque is qua some other loan taken by the accused from the husband of complainant prior to his death and the loan in question is a separate loan taken from the complainant by the accused. Ld. Counsel further argued that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that accused made the paymnet of Rs. 10,00,000/- qua the cheque in question then also the offence under section 138 of NI Act is made out against the accused since the legal demand notice was admittedly received to the accused in the month of March 2021 and he made the alleged payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to complainant through cheque in the month of July 2021 i.e. much after the statutory period of 15 days to make the payment and accused has failed to prove that he has repaid the loan in question to the complainant and not qua some other loan.
9.2. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant has been able to prove all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused and accused has not produced any cogent evidence to prove that he has repaid the loan in question to complainant. The Complainant has thus prayed for conviction of the accused for the offence u/s 138 of NI Act.
10. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
10.1. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that accused has already paid the cheque amount in question to the complainant even before the summonning and complainant has hidden this fact from the court in order to mislead the court and to extort more money from the accused. Ld. Counsel further argued that repayment of the cheque amount is not the only ground of defence taken by the accused and complainant has hidden the real facts from the court. Ld. Counsel submitted that accused had not taken any loan from the complainant rather he had taken the loan from the deceased husband of the complainant and had given four security cheques to him signed in blank which includes the cheque in question and complainant has misused that security cheque of accused after the death of her husband despite receiving the loan amount. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused has successfully rebutted the presumption of law in favour of the complainant, if any since there are material contradictions in the version of the complainant qua the time of giving loan in question to accused since in the complaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit, complainant stated that she gave the alleged loan in question to accused in the CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 5 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:46:52 +05'30' third week of August 2020 when he demanded the same, however, during her cross examination complainant stated that she gave the loan in question to accused on different dates such as sometimes she gave the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to accused and sometimes Rs.1,50,000/-. Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant has admitted during her cross examination that accused had borrowed money from her husband and returned the same. Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant has further admitted the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the accused to her through Cheque bearing No. 277339 after she sent the legal demand notice to accsued of this case and she falsely submitted that the said payment was for the different loan which accused had taken from her husband. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel that accused did not take any loan from the complainant and he had only taken the loan from her husband which he already returned as admitted by the complainant and complainant has failed to prove that she advanced the loan in question to accused. Ld. Counsel further argued that two versions of the complainant qua the period and amount of giving alleged loan in question to accused are self contradictory and sufficient enough to rebut the testimony of complainant and further renders the story of complainant unbelievable which is based on false and concoted facts. 10.2. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that accused has repaid the entire cheque amount in question to the complainant and complainant did not return the cheque in question to him which was a security cheque given to her husband despite receiving the entire amount and accused does not have any liability towards the complainant and complainnat has filed a false case against accused by playing fraud and there are number of material contradictions in the testimony of complainant which were brought into records during the cross examination of complainant done on behalf of accused and accused got himself examined as a witness to testify. Hence, accused has successfully discharged his burden to rebut the presumption of law in favour of complainant, if any raised.
11. 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 CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 6 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:47:02 +05'30' 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 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 of other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
11.1. 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.
CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 7 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:47:13 +05'30'
12. Now, coming to the facts of the present complaint case keeping in view the essential ingredients of section 138 of NI Act.
12.1. In this case, it is not disputed and duly admitted by the accused that the cheque in question bears his signatures and belongs to him of a bank account being maintained by him . Therefore, the essential ingredient (i) as discussed in the preceding paragraph stands fulfilled. Accused has further admitted the fact of dishonour of the cheque in question, hence, another essential ingredients (iii) and (iv) also stand proved by the complainant. Accused has further admitted the fact of receiving the legal demand notice sent to him by complainant, hence, essential ingredients (v) and (vi) also stand proved.
13. Now coming to the last and the remaining core ingredients (ii) and (vii) of Section 138 of NI Act as discussed in preceding Para 11.1 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 and whether the same is a legally enforceable debt. Now in the present case accused has duly admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but denied having filled the date of the cheque. However, the said proposition has been duly observed and settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh versus Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197. The relevant paras are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
"36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. 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.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
Further reiterated in Triyambak S Hedge vs Sripad (2021) SCC Online SC 788. Therefore Section 139 of the NI Act is germane to this and according to Section 139 of CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 8 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:47:25 +05'30' Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed 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. In the case in hand, accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, thereby attracting the initial presumption of section 139 of NI Act 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.
13.1. It is settled law now that once accused/drawer of the cheque admits his/her 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..."
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 CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 9 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA 16:47:38 +05'30' Date: 2023.03.01 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 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 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."
13.2. 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. In the present case, since the accused has admitted his signatures on cheque in question, there arises an initial presumption in terms of Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act not only regarding existence of legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant but also regarding issuance of cheque in question by the accused in favour of complainant in discharge of his aforesaid liability. 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.
13.3. The primary issue in the case in hand is to determine whether the accused has succeeded in discharging his burden, that whether he has successfully raised a probable defence in order to create a reasonable doubt in the case of complainant to discard the presumption of law in favour of complainant.
13.4. The accused has chosen to examine himself as a witness/DW-1, so, now it is to be seen in the light of cross-examination of the complainant as well as defence evidence lead by the accused, whether he 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. In the present case,the accused has tried to CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 10 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:47:49 +05'30' rebut the presumptions u/s. 118(a) and 139 NI Act on the ground that he has already paid the loan amount in question to the complainant and complainant did not return his cheque back which he had given to the husband of complainant as security when he had taken the loan from him. Accused further stated that he did not take the loan from the complainant but from her deceased husband. The payment of the cheque amount in question i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lac) made by accused to complainant is admitted and complainant duly filed his account statement in this regard. It is further conceded by the complainant that accused made the said payment after she sent the legal demand notice to him in this case. Complainant tried to rebut said payment against the loan in question by stating that accused paid the said amount for some other loan which he had taken from her husband and not against the loan in question. On the other hand accused has deposed that he had taken the loan from the husband of complainant only and not from the complainant. During the cross examination, complainant stated that she gave the loan in question to accsued on different dates in the different sum amount such as Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-, however, she did not mention this fact earlier either in her complaint or evidence by way of affidavit and she failed to give any explainantion also in this regards. 13.5. During the cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for accused, testimony of complainant did not remain intact and there are several material contradictions. Complainant has further failed to explain the source of her income and her actual income so that she could lend such a huge amount to accused and thats too in cash. Further, complainant herself admitted that she did not show the loan in question in her ITR despite filing the same. It is further observed that there is no written document got prepared by the complainant when she was lending such a huge amount to someone in cash. Accused has stated that he had given the cheque in question signed in blank to the husband of complainant along with three other cheques as security and in this regard he relied upon the record slip of his cheque book which has not been countered by the complainant while accsued/DW-1 was cross examined on her behalf.
13.6. Again, the accused is only supposed to discharge his onus not beyound 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 CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 11 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:48:02 +05'30' no air tight formula can be adopted in order to ascertain as to whether accused has been successful in dislodging the tesitomy of complainant before the court. 13.7. 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. Further, it has been held in Rajesh Agarwal v. State, 2010 SCC online Del 2501 that:-
"9. .....There is no presumption that even if an accused fails to bring out his defence, he is still to be considered innocent. If an accused has a defence against dishonour of the cheque in question, it is he alone who knows the defence and responsibility of spelling out this defence to the court and then proving this defences is on the accused....."
In the present case accused has substantiated his defence by leading the cogent evidence and which is admitted by the complainant also that accused has paid the cheque amount in question. Now, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the said payment was made for some other loan which is different from the loan in question. However, I fail to understand as to what restrained the complainant to bring the fact of payment made by the accused to her regarding some other loan and not for the loan in question by leading additional evidence by way of affidavit when she tendored her evidence by way of affidavit, rather , complainant relied on her pre summoning evidence during her post summoning evidence despite knowing the fact that accused has taken the defence of making the payment of cheque amount in question at the time of framing of notice.
14. In the present case in hand keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and and the material contradictions coming out in the cross examination of the complainant and also the settled position of law in this regard, the presumption of law as per section 118(a)and section 139 of NI Act raised in favour of complainant has been CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 12 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA BALA Date: 2023.03.01 16:48:17 +05'30' successfully rebutted by the accused and complainant has been unable to discharge her shifted burden of proving the fact of issuance of cheque in question in discharge of legally enforceable debt since accused brought on record such facts and materials before the court through cross examination of complainant as well as his own evidence which led this court to disbelieve the testimony of complainant and probablised the defence raised by the accused and falsified the case of the complaint.
15. This Court has considered opinion that the complainant has been unable to prove her case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 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.
NIDHI Digitally signed by
NIDHI BALA
BALA Date: 2023.03.01
16:48:32 +05'30'
Announced in Open Court (NIDHI BALA)
today on 01.03.2023 MM (NI Act) Digital Court,
NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA
Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.
NIDHI Digitally signed
by NIDHI BALA
BALA Date: 2023.03.01
16:48:46 +05'30'
(NIDHI BALA)
MM (NI Act) Digital Court,
NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA/01.03.2023
CC No. 375/2021 Sunita Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page no. 13 of 13