Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar vs . Deepak Cc No. 4312/2018 Ps North Rohini on 4 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
C.C. No. : 4312/18
P.S. : North Rohini
Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kashmiri Lal
R/o H. No. 59-60,
Block C-4, Sultanpuri, Delhi
.........Complainant
Versus
1. Deepak,
S/o Sh. Kalu Ram,
R/o C-3/17, Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
At also: C-3/10, 1st & 2nd floor,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
............Accused
Date of institution of case : 22.03.2018
Date of reserving the judgment : 18.07.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 4312/2018 2. Date of institution of the case: 22.03.2018 3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Vinod Kumar 4. Name of the accused : Ms. Deepak 5. Offence complained or proved: 138 N.I. Act 6. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty" Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 1 of 16 DEEPALI Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.08.04 16:55:09 +0530 7. Final Order: Acquitted 8. Date of Final Order: 04.08.2023 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by the Complainant against the above-named accused under section 138 read with section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) for dishonour of cheque bearing no. 000006 dated 12.02.2018 for Rs. 5,70,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) That the accused has approached the complainant in the month of December, 2016 and told him that the accused was in dire need of money and requested for friendly loan Rs. 5,70,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Seventy Thousand Only) from the complainant only for one year. Considering the friendly as well as family relation with each other, the complainant acceded to the request of the accused and paid him an interest free friendly loan for sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- in cash on 05.12.2016. At that time, the accused again assured the complainant that he will return the said amount within one year only. At the end of one year complainant asked the accused for the return above said friendly loan taken by the accused. After much efforts, the accused issued one cheque to the complainant bearing no. 000006 dated 12.02.2018 for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- drawn on Bank of India, 23/14, Sri Balaji Shopping Centre, Delhi-11091 in favour of complainant.
(b) As such it has been alleged that the amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- is due and payable by the accused to the complainant towards repayment of the friendly Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Digitally signed by Page 2 of 16 DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:55:17 +0530 loan.
(c) On 12.02.2018 the accused had in discharge of his legally enforceable liability issued a cheque to the complainant. Details of the cheque are as under:-
Sr. No. Cheque No. Date Amount Drawn on
Bank of
India, Sh.
Balaji
1. 000006 12.02.2018 5,70,000/- Shopping
Centre,
Delhi-110091
(d) That the complainant deposited the aforesaid cheque with his banker but the cheque was returned back dishonored vide bank memo dated 13.02.2018 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
(e) That on 16.02.2018 the complainant sent legal notice to the accused and the accused failed to comply with the requirement of the said notice within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of service of notice.
(f) That the accused has issued the said cheque in discharge of a legal liability knowing fully well that he has no sufficient funds in her bank account and had issued the said cheque with malafide intention to cheat the complainant and thus he has committed an offence U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, the present complaint has been filed.
3. After taking pre-summoning evidence, the Court took cognizance of the offence under section 138 NI Act and directed issuance of process against accused. In pursuance thereof, accused appeared before the Court and Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 3 of 16 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:55:30 +0530 furnished Court Bail.
4. Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was framed against the accused on 22.05.2019. In the notice, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused stated that the cheque in question has been given by him to the complainant. The accused has stated that he had availed a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- only from the complainant and had given his six cheques to him including the cheque in question as security to the complainant. It has been stated that these cheques were never returned by the complainant and out of the same cheques, one cheque has been misused by the complainant. The accused has admitted the receipt of legal demand notice as alleged to be sent by the complainant.
5. In Complainant's Evidence (CE), complainant has examined himself as CW-1 by way of tendering an affidavit of evidence. CW-1/A. The complainant placed reliance on the following documents:-
(a) Ex. CW1/A pre-summoning evidence (colly).
(b) Ex. CW-1/1 is the original cheque in question bearing no. 000006.
(c) Ex. CW-1/2 is the original cheque returning memo dated 13.02.2018.
(d) Ex. CW-1/3 is copy of the Legal Notice dated 16.02.2018.
(e) Ex. CW-1/4 and Ex. CW-1/5 is the postal receipts.
(f) Ex. CW-1/6 is reply of the notice dated 16.02.2018.
(g) Ex. CW-1/7 is a complaint.
6. CW-1 Vinod Kumar was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused and CW-1 has deposed that he is working as a Sanjay Cable Operator and accused was his neighbour. He does not remember the exact address of the accused Deepak but he knows him since from 10 and 12 years.
Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini
Page 4 of 16
Digitally signed by
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.08.04
16:55:38 +0530
It has been stated by the complainant that he gave the alleged amount on 05.12.2016 for a period of one year. The accused used to keep taking money from his mother on continuous basis in 2012 as such he do not know the exact amount of money given as loan in total to the accused. It has been admitted that he did not use to maintain any written accounts of the money advanced to the accused and all the transactions used to be verbally only. He states that the loan in question was given to the accused in cash in denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 2,000/-. Upon question about his source of income, complainant has stated that his monthly income was approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- in 2016 and use to earn approximately Rs. 1 to 1.5 Lakh per day from his medical shop. He gave the loan in question to the accused out of the income generated from his medical shop. Complainant has admitted that demonetization happened in November 2016 i.e. at time when he gave the loan to the accused and there is no written document regarding the loan given to the accused. It is stated that the loan was given in front of mother of the accused. He has no more cheque of Sh. Deepak at present. He has stated that there was a loan given by his mother to the accused in 2012, however, he does not know the exact loan amount. It has stated that, the transactions in question is different from the transactions which took with his mother. He stated that he does not know whether the accused gave 8 cheques to his mother in 2012 when the accused took a loan from my mother and whether the accused repaid the entire loan amount taken from his mother in 2012 by 2014. He has denied that he has misused one of 8 cheques given by the accused to his mother and filed the present case. H has further denied that the 8 cheques given by the accused to his mother were not returned to him even after repayment of the loan amount. He has further denied that there was no written documentation of the loan in question as no such loan was ever advanced by him to the accused. He has further denied that the accused does Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 5 of 16 DEEPALI Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:55:45 +0530 not know him and that he had no transacations with the accused. He states that he does not have any money lending license as he is not into the business of lending money to people. It has been deposed that the cheque in question was filled entirely by the accused and given to him. He has further denied that the cheque in question was only signed by the accused and that he has misused the cheque by filling in the particulars. He has admitted that the return memo Ex. CW-1/2 does not bear the signatures of any bank official. He has further denied that he has filed the present complaint to harass the accused.
7. Thereafter, CE was closed vide order dated 01.12.2022. It was followed by recording of the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC on 15.12.2022. All the incriminating evidence were put to accused to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. It was stated by the accused that he had taken a loan of Rs. 2 lakh from the mother of the complainant in the year 2012. For the same, he had given 08 blank signed security cheques to the mother of the complainant. He had returned the aforesaid loan to the mother of the complainnat in installment. However, the security cheques were not returned to him despite payment. Accused has denied from any liability towards the complainant rather it is his defence that complainant misused the cheque in question. The accused admitted to receiving the legal notice from the complainant. The accused opted to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, defence evidence was led by the accused.
8. DW-1 Smt. Saroj, mother of accused has deposed in her examination-
in-chief that she is the mother of the accused Deepak. She never met Vinod Kumar and no transaction has been ever done between Vinod Kumar and Deepak but she know the mother of the complainant namely Santosh and she Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 6 of 16 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:55:53 +0530 took some amount from the mother of complainant and had given eight blank signed cheques of his son in the year 2012 to the mother of the complainant Santosh at the time of advancing of loan and she had already returned the loan amount in twenty equal installment of Rs. 15,000/- including interest. She had taken two lacs but she had returned three lacs including interest to the mother of the complainant but when she asked to return the cheques from the mother of the complainant which were given at the time of advancing loan as a security, the mother of complainant stated that above said cheques were misplaced and thereafter mother of complainant with the help of her son has filed false and fabricated against his son just to extort money from him. As such she and her son do not have any liability.
9. DW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, where she has stated that her son works in canteen. She do not know the place of work. She know the mother of complainant who resides at C-4, Sultan Puri. She has admitted that she used to take and give loan from the mother of the complainant. She has further admitted that she has taken the loan from the mother of complainant in the year 2012. She has further admitted that she used to take loan and pay installment at the house of the mother of the complainant. She stated that her daughter's name is Neetu, however, she denied that there was no money transaction between his son or daughter and complainant.
10. After leading evidence, DE was closed vide order dated 13.03.2023. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North RohiniDigitally signed Page 7 of 16 DEEPALI by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:02 +0530
11. During the course of arguments, it was argued on behalf of the complainant that the amount has been taken by accused and in order to return the amount, when the cheque in question was given, the same got dishonored. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that the cheque in question bears the signature of accused and he has admitted of giving the same to the complainant. On this basis, the complainant has argued that the presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act lies in favour of the complainant and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption and raise a probable defence.
12. Per contra; Ld. Counsel for the accused has opposed the arguments rendered on behalf of the complainant and advanced the following submissions:
(a) The complainant has not placed on record any proof of friendly loan.
Further, he did not remember the exact figure of the amount given in cash to the accused.
(b) The cheque in question was misused by the complainant himself in collusion with his mother who has misused one of the said cheque hence, no liability arises.
13. The Court has carefully perused the case record and has heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as by Ld. Defence counsel.
14. The question in the present case revolves around whether the impugned cheque was issued towards the discharge in whole or in part of legally enforceable liability or debt as envisaged under section 138 NI Act. Thus it Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 8 of 16 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:09 +0530 becomes apposite at this juncture to reproduce section 138 NI Act:
"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts 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 extend to two year", or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability."
15. Thus, in order to ascertain whether the accused has committed an offence u/s 138 NI Act, the following ingredients constituting the offence have to be proved:
(a) The drawer of the cheque should have issued the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part of a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
(b) The cheque 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.
(c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice from the payee or the holder in due course demanding the payment of the said amount of money.
Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 9 of 16 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:17 +0530 It is only when all the above mentioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who has drawn the cheque can be set to have committed an offence u/s 138 NI Act.
16. Section 138 NI Act has to be read with the legal presumptions u/s 139 and 118 NI Act in favour of the payee or holder in due course. The said sections are reproduced below:
"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, or any debt or other liability."
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
(a) Of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has bee accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
(b) As to date that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;."
17. These presumptions in favour or complainant are rebuttable in nature and it is no more res integra that the burden lies on the shoulder of the accused to rebut the same. It is now well established that the accused can prove the non-existence of any debt or any other liability by raising a probable defence or by demolishing or discrediting the case of the complainant in cross-examination of witness adduced by the complainant. It is not necessary for the accused to lead direct evidence to rebut the presumptions. He may do so by showing preponderence of probabilities and Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 10 of 16 DEEPALI Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:24 +0530that may be by relying upon the circumstances on record.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.S. Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39 laid down the law in the given terms:
"For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. This Court, therefore, clearly opined that it is not necessary for the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence. The standard of proof evidently is pre-ponderance of probabilities. Inference of pre-ponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on records but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies."
19. The Apex Court also clarified that the standard of proof is not as heavy as that of prosecution, which is to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubts but the one upon the accused is only mere preponderence of probabilities. The observations made in K. Prakashan vs P. K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 are as follows:
"It is furthermore not in doubt or dispute that whereas the standard of proof so far as the prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt; the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of probability".
20. In the facts of the present case. Accused in his statement u/s 251 Cr.PC has admitted that he had given the cheque in question along with other cheques total 6 in number to the complainant at the time of taking a loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant but despite having returned the amount, the cheques were not returned by the complainant and the same have been misused by the complainant in the present case. Accused has stated Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 11 of 16 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:31 +0530 that at the time of taking the amount, mother of the complainant use to maintain the accounts in his dairy. Accused has also admitted the receipt of legal notice alleged to be sent by the complainant and has also replied to the same. The same line of defence has been disclosed by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC , with the deviation that he has stated that he had taken the loan amount from the mother of the complainant and had given 8 blank signed cheques to the mother of the complainant.
21. Thus, considering the defence of the accused, it comes to the fore that accused has denied any liability towards the cheque in question. It has been stated by him that he never took any loan in the sum of alleged amount of Rs.5,70,000/-, rather only an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- were taken by him. However, from whom he had taken this amount is not clear as during 251 Cr.PC statement, he has stated that this amount was taken from complainant, but in his reply to legal notice, he has stated that only 1,00,000/- was taken by him from the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- were taken by his sister, which ends with his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC where he has stated that Rs.2,00,000/- were taken by him from mother of the complainant. Even during his defence evidence, DW-1 the mother of accused namely Saroj has given a total different version that no amount was ever taken by her daughter or son rather she use to borrow money from the mother of the complainant and then she had given the cheques of his son, to the mother of complainant namely Santosh in 2012, which despite repayment of the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- were not returned by the Santosh and out of the same cheques one cheque has been misused by the complainant who is the son of the Santosh.
22. The accused in his defence has questioned the capacity of the complainant, to lend the alleged loan, to which complainant has stated that he Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 12 of 16 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:38 +0530 use to earn around Rs.1,00,000/- monthly from his cable business and around Rs.1-1.5 lakh from his medical shop and the alleged loan was given by him from his income earned out of medical shop. At this, accused has questioned that complainant has stated that he gave the loan to the accused for sum of Rs.5,70,000/- in Nov 2016 in denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs,2,000/- notes currency, but as demonitization was announced on 8th November, 2016 how he had given the huge amount that too in denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- to the accused on 15.12.2016, to which except admitting that demonitisation had already taken place at time when he gave the alleged loan, no answer or clarification has been given by complainant, which raise suspicion about availability of the alleged amount with the complainant at that point of time. It is to be noted that complainant during his cross examination has stated that the amount was being taken by accused continously from his mother over a period of time and as such, he do not know the exact amount given to the accused by his mother in 2012. At the same stage, complainant has stated that all the amount was given in cash and as such there was no record maintained by him for any amount given to the accused in sum of Rs.5,70,000/-. Complainant has also stated that the amount was given to the accused in the presence of the mother of the accused, but the mother of accused, who has been examined as DW-1 has totally denied any transaction between the complainant and his son.
23. Therefore, from an analysis of the testimony of the complainant it can be said that the complainant has not placed on record any agreement for friendly loan as alleged to be given by him. At the same time he himself has stated that he did not know exactly how much amount was given by his mother to the accused in 2012. As a person of reasonable prudence, if a family member has given some amount to the same person to whom he had Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA DEEPALI Page 13 of 16 SRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.08.04 16:56:45 +0530 lend the amount, he generally ought to know the amount so given, but complainant by saying that he do not know the amount so given raises doubt on the conduct on the complainant and raises question of concealment on part on the complainant. Rather, it makes the version of the DW-1, that she had taken amount from mother of complainant and had given the cheques of the accused to her, highly probable. Also,complainant himself has stated that accused use to take money on continuous from his mother. Thus when accused was already taking money from his mother, the repayment of which is not within his knowledge, then it seems dubious on part of complainant to again given a loan of Rs. 5,70,000/- to accused and that too without any documentation. Also, he has been unable to explain the source of cash in denomination of Rs.2,000/- currency notes on 15.12.2016 when demonitization has prevailed. In absence of any document that were required to be produced by the complainant, complainant has failed to corroborate his case to show that the alleged loan amount was given to the accused. On the another hand accused by pointing out the infirmities has been successful in shaking the complainant's case by disputing the said the loan and creating a doubt in mind in regard to such transaction. As the complainant has been unable to corroborate or support the averments as contained in his complaint in absence of any documentary evidence, the case of the complainant becomes extremely doubtful and the creditworthiness of the complainant become questionable.
In Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v Amin Chand Payrelal (1999) 3 SCC 35 it was laid down as under:
"The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Digitally signed by Page 14 of 16 DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:56:52 +0530 onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument."
In Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya V. Hegde 2008 Crl.L.J. 1172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for proving the defence, accused is not required to step into the witness box and need not to examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the material already brought on records as he has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Court also held that prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities'. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relied. It was also held that where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. Hon'ble Supreme Court also cautioned that the courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction.
24. After going through the record, this court is convinced that there is sufficient evidence brought on record as well as circumstances shown by the accused to doubt the case of the complainant.
Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Page 15 of 16 SRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.08.04 16:57:00 +0530
25. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, in the opinion of this court, the accused has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of legal liability by exposing the inherent infirmities in the case of the complainant. The above discussed factors dilute the believability quotient of the complainant's case.
26. Further it was also observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "S S Chouhan Vs. State & Anr 2012 III AD (Delhi) 545".
"Courts must be on guard to see that merely on application of presumption as contemplated U/s 139 N I Act, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."
"Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced".
Conclusion:
From the above said facts, in the thoughtful opinion of this court, accused has succeeded to rebut the presumption raised against him u/s 139 N.I. Act and as per settled law once accused has raised a probable defense creating reasonable doubt about the existence of legally enforceable liability the onus shifts to complainant to prove that cheques were issued by the accused towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, which the complainant has failed to discharge. Hence, accused Deepak is acquitted for the offence u/s 138, N.I. Act.Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2023.08.04 16:57:06 +0530 Announced in open Court (Deepali Srivastava) on 4th Day of August, 2023 Metropolitan Magistrate-03, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi Vinod Kumar Vs. Deepak CC no. 4312/2018 PS North Rohini Page 16 of 16