Delhi District Court
Mahesh Chand Kinger vs Sh Gauranga Charan Sahoo on 12 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURBHI GUPTA ANAND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (N.I. ACT)-08
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 7916/2021
CNR No. DLCT02-022527-2021
Mahesh Chand Kinger .........Complainant
Through: Sh. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
Versus
Gauranga Charan Sahoo @ Gaurav ..........Accused
Through: Sh. Anshul Pratap Singh, Advocate
JUDGMENT
A. S.NO OF THE CASE : 7916/2021
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.10.2021
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : After 15th day of service of
legal demand notice issued
by complainant.
D. NAME OF THE : Mahesh Chand Kinger
COMPLAINANT S/o Late Sh. Gopal Das Kinger
R/o House No. 7956/7,
Aarakansha Road, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Gauranga Charan Sahoo @
Gaurav
S/o BK Sahoo
R/o 8138/6, Arakashan Road,
Pahargnaj, New Delhi-55.
SURBHI Digitally
by SURBHI
signed
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.12
GUPTA ANAND
ANAND 15:59:19 +0530
CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 1 of 16
F. OFFENCE : U/s 138 NI Act
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : ACQUITTAL
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12.01.2026
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has been initiated at the instance of the complainant Mahesh Chand Kinger against the accused Gauranga Charan Sahoo @ Gaurav, u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) in relation to the dishonor of a cheque bearing number no. 000915 dated 15.09.2021 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi-110055 (hereinafter referred to as the cheque in question), allegedly issued for discharge of his legal liability owed towards the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that he came to know the accused through business transactions and thereby developed friendly relations. In the month of April, 2021 accused approached the complainant for friendly loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- for four months for urgent personal requirements. Complainant advanced the loan in cash by arranging the funds from his own savings and other sources, on the assurance of accused that the amount shall be repaid on or before August, 2021. After expiry of the due period, complainant asked the accused for return of the loan Digitally signed SURBHI by SURBHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 ANAND 15:59:28 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 2 of 16 amount but accused started avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other.
3. After a lot of persuasion, the accused issued the cheque in question for the discharge of the aforesaid liability, with the assurance that the same shall be honored upon presentation. It is further alleged that upon presentation the cheque in question got dishonored vide return memo dated 16.09.2021 for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and consequently, a legal demand notice was sent demanding the amount of the cheque in question on 27.09.2021. The same was served / deemed to have been served upon the accused, however, despite the same, payment was not made by the accused within the prescribed period of 15 days.
4. The complainant was thus constrained to file the present complaint u/s 138 NI Act, and on the basis of the law laid down in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790, complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents, and finding that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, cognizance was taken and accused was summoned vide order dated 21.12.2021. Accused entered his first appearance along with his counsel on 27.04.2022.
5. On 10.10.2023, notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was framed upon the accused stating out to him the substance of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. His defence was recorded at the stage of framing of notice in compliance of directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Aggarwal v. State (2010) 171 DLT 51. Accused took the defence, in brief, that he knew the complainant as his hotel was opposite the shop of the complainant; 2-3 years ago, he gave 3-4 unsigned blank cheques including Digitally signed SURBHI by SURBHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 ANAND 15:59:38 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 3 of 16 the cheque in question, original PAN card and copy of Aadhar card to the complainant for getting a loan of Rs. 2-3 lacs; he never received the said loan and asked the complainant to return his documents and cheque; complainant never returned the same and misused them to file the present case; he does not owe any liability qua the cheque in question. Accused disputed his signatures on the cheque and denied filling in the particulars therein. Accused further denied receipt of the legal notice however, he admitted the address mentioned on the legal notice to be correct.
6. Vide order dated 10.10.2023, accused was granted right to cross-examine the complainant upon oral application u/s 145(2) NI Act.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
7. Complainant was examined as CW-1 thereby tendering his post-
summoning evidence based on his pre-summoning affidavit i.e. Ex.CW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Sr.No. Exhibits Documents
(a) Ex. CW1/A Original cheque no. 000915 dated 15.09.2021
(b) Ex. CW1/B Return memo dated 16.09.2021
(c) Ex. CW1/C Legal notice dated 27.09.2021
(d) Postal receipts of the legal demand notice
Ex. CW1/D
dated 04.10.2021
(e) Ex. CW1/E Tracking report
8. CW-1 was duly cross-examined and vide separate statement of the complainant, complainant evidence was closed on 03.07.2024.
SURBHI Digitally by SURBHI signed GUPTA Date: 2026.01.12 GUPTA ANAND ANAND 15:59:46 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 4 of 16
9. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C.
on 28.01.2025 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him and accused was granted an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him at trial. While explaining circumstances appearing in evidence against him, accused stated without oath, in brief, that during the covid period he was in need of money and complainant assured him to get a loan from bank; he issued the cheque in question to the complainant for the same purpose, but no loan was received by him; he never took any loan from the complainant and therefore, he has no liability qua the cheque in question. Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and the address mentioned on the legal demand notice to be his correct address.
10. Accused preferred to lead evidence in his defence in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 15.04.2025, defence evidence was closed upon submission of the accused that he does not wish to lead any defence evidence, and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PARTIES
11. At the stage of final arguments, Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as friendly loan from the complainant and issued the cheque in question in discharge of his liability towards the complainant. Accused disputed his signatures in his defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C. but the reason for return of the cheque is ' funds insufficient'. Accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as well as handing it over to the complainant. Accused has though put forth the defence that the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of obtaining a bank loan and that complainant misused the cheque, he never replied to the legal notice nor filed any Digitally signed by SURBHI SURBHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav ANAND Page no.
15:59:54 5 of 16
+0530
complaint or issue stop payment instructions. Accused did not lead any defence evidence and has failed to raise a probable defence in his favor. All ingredients of section 138 NI Act having been fulfilled, Ld. Counsel for the complainant prayed to convict the accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act.
Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted in his written arguments that the complaint filed by the complainant is silent on several material aspects, for example, no date on which the loan was extended has been mentioned. As per para 3 of the complaint, the demand for loan was for 4 months but as per para 4, the loan duration was for 1 year, and date of issuance of cheque is not mentioned. Further, in the complaint, Rs.4,50,000/- is mentioned to have been extended as friendly loan by way of cash whereas in his cross-examination complainant/CW-1 states that loan amount was partly paid in cash and partly by way of DD/cheque. Further, even the DD/cheque transaction or bank account statement has not been placed on record. The complainant/ CW-1 failed to establish the liability of the accused qua the cheque amount despite being specifically questioned thereto as he didn't produce the diary upon which he allegedly maintained transactions with the accused and could not establish his financial capacity to extend the loan in question. Complainant has failed to establish his case and therefore, presumption u/s 139 NI Act has been successfully rebutted. Ld. counsel for the accused thus, prayed that accused be acquitted for the offence u/s 138 NI Act. Accused has relied on Manoj Kumar Panchal vs. Mahender Kumar Panchal, Crl.L.P.367/2018, Del HC, in support of his averments.
Digitally signedSURBHI by SURBHI GUPTA ANAND GUPTA Date:
ANAND 2026.01.12 16:00:02 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 6 of 16 APPRAISAL
12. The legal position serving as base to the offence underlying Section 138 NI Act, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd.: (2000) 2 SCC 745 is:
(i) that 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 for the discharge of any debt or other liability;
(ii) that 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;
(iii) that the 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;
(iv) that 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 thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(v) that 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;
13. The above legal requirements are cumulative, meaning thereby that only if all the ingredients are satisfied can the person who had drawn the cheque be held liable for offence u/s 138 NI Act.
14. Burden of proof: The claim based under the provisions of NI Act is an exception to the general rule of law that burden of proof lies upon the prosecution, in view of the two specific provisions viz. Section 118 (a) and 139 of NI Act. A presumption is attached to each negotiable instrument SURBHI Digitally by SURBHI signed GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav ANAND Page 16:00:09 +0530 no. 7 of 16 that the same was drawn and issued against due discharge of liability and thus, whenever any claim is made based on a negotiable instrument, the presumption is drawn in favor of the holder of the cheque (drawee). Law has put the burden to rebut the presumption on the accused that the cheque was not issued by him against discharge of a debt or a liability. In case the accused cannot rebut the presumption and fails to prove his defence, the presumption becomes absolute and accused is assumed guilty of the offence.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa v. Mohan, 2010 (11) SCC 441 that presumption of Section 139 of NI Act also includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. The said presumption is a presumption of law and not a presumption of fact and thus, presumption has to be drawn in favor of the drawee and the burden to rebut the presumption with the probable defence is on the accused. (Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee: 2001 (6) SCC 16) This is an instance of the rule of ' reverse onus', where it is incumbent on the accused to lead what can be called ' negative evidence' i.e. to lead evidence to show non-existence of liability. This is a departure from the cardinal rule of 'presumption of innocence' in favor of the accused and that negative evidence is not easy to be led by its very nature, it is now settled that the accused can displace this presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities and the lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt need not be proved to the hilt or beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused can either prove that liability did not exist or make the non-existence of liability so probable that a reasonable person, ought under the circumstances of the case, act on the supposition that it does not exist. He can do so either by leading own evidence in his defence or even SURBHI Digitally by SURBHI signed GUPTA Date: 2026.01.12 GUPTA ANAND ANAND 16:00:16 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 8 of 16 by punching holes in the case of the complainant in the testing ordeal of cross-examination.
Further, in Bharat Barrel v. Drum Manufacturing, AIR 1999 SC 1008, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accused has to rebut the presumption and mere denial of passing of consideration is no defence.
It is, thus, clear that in cases of Section 138 NI Act, upon proof of foundational facts, law presumes in favor of drawee that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge, wholly or in part, of legally enforceable debt or liability and the burden to rebut the same is upon the accused. The burden does not have to be conclusively established but the accused must prove his defence on preponderance of probability.
15. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perusing the record carefully, the appreciation of evidence and findings of the court are as below:
16. The first legal requirement is:
"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 for the discharge of any debt or other liability."
At the outset it has to be proved that accused had issued the cheque in question for discharge of any debt or other liability.
In the present case, accused has disputed his signatures on the cheque in question in his defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C., however, he has admitted his signatures in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The reason for dishonor of the cheque in question is ' funds insufficient' and not difference or mismatch in the signatures of the accused.
Digitally signedSURBHI by SURBHI GUPTA ANAND GUPTA Date:
ANAND 2026.01.12 16:00:25 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 9 of 16 The cheque in question has also been drawn on the account maintained by accused at ICICI Bank, Paharganj Branch, Delhi.
The said fact has not been denied by the accused at any stage of proceeding and as such a mandatory presumption automatically arises in favor of complainant by virtue of Section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act that the cheque in question was issued by him in discharge of, whole or part of legally enforceable debt or liability. This has been crystallized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC
418. 16.1. Therefore, what remains to be seen is whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption accruing in favor of the complainant or not, the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption being that of preponderance of probabilities.
16.2. The complainant herein has set up a claim of Rs.4,50,000/- against the accused. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a friendly loan from him and had issued the cheque in question in discharge of this liability towards the loan, but the same was returned as dishonored.
16.3. Accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question as well as handing over the same to the complainant, however, he has denied taking any loan from the complainant. Since the very beginning, and throughout the course of trial, accused has been consistent in his defence that the cheque in question had been handed over to the complainant for the purpose of procuring a bank loan along with 2-3 other cheques and some documents, and not for the purpose of repaying any loan taken from the Digitally signed SURBHI by SURBHI GUPTA ANAND GUPTA Date:
ANAND 2026.01.12 16:00:31 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 10 of 16 complainant. Complainant was never able to secure a bank loan for him and instead misused his cheque.
16.4. Accused chose to cross-examine the complainant/CW-1 in support of his defence. Notable points that came forth during CW-1's cross-examination, in brief, are that he has no knowledge about the contents of his affidavit as he cannot read or write in English and that he had signed on the same at the instructions of his counsel, he handed over all the documents to his counsel for filing the present case, he has no fixed income from his mobile shop and he earns about Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month, the loan in question was the 3rd loan given to the accused by him, he gave the loan amount in question to the accused for a period of 2-3 months by way of 2-3 installments - Rs.1,00,000/- in cash, Rs. 1,20,000/- by DD, Rs.50,000/- by cash, Rs.80,000/- by cheque and rest of the amount by cash, totaling Rs.4,50,000/-. Accused handed over the cheque in question at the time of borrowing the last installment. Accused took the loan for different purposes in the present case viz electricity meter (Rs. 1,20,000/-) and lease of his hotel (Rs.80,000/). Complainant has no knowledge about the material particulars of the present case viz the exact loan amount of the present case as he has filed several cases against the accused and the date on which he gave the loan installments to the accused, and though he maintains a diary regarding the transactions with accused, he has not filed it on record.
16.5. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that no loan agreement or other document prescribing the terms and conditions on which the alleged loan was extended to the accused was ever placed on record by the complainant.
Further, the testimony of the complainant/CW-1 is not only devoid of SURBHI Digitally by SURBHI signed GUPTA Date: 2026.01.12 GUPTA ANAND ANAND 16:00:39 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 11 of 16 material particulars with respect to the loan in question but is also contradictory to the complaint itself.
16.6. Despite specific questions having been posed to him in this respect, complainant has been unable to establish his financial capacity to extend the loan in question. Complainant has deposed that he had no fixed income and earned about Rs.20-25,000/- per month from his mobile shop, however, he has been able to extend a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused, and that too for the third time. By his own admission, complainant has filed several cases against the accused, meaning thereby that even the previous loan amounts remain unpaid.
Further, the complainant has failed to maintain a consistent stand with respect to the mode by which he extended the loan in question to the accused. In his complaint, the complainant avers that he gave the entire loan amount to the accused in cash by arranging the same from different sources at once, however, in his cross-examination, the complainant deposed that he gave the alleged loan amount to the accused by way of installments and not in a single transaction. Moreover, some of these installments were allegedly given to the accused by way of demand draft and cheque, and not entirely in cash. Complainant has not placed his bank statements or particulars regarding this demand draft or cheque on record, in support of his allegation.
Lastly, complainant has failed to recall the dates on which he gave the alleged loan installments to the accused, and though he refers to a diary maintained by him to record his transactions with the accused, he failed to place it on record despite it being in his possession.
16.7. In the event of accused admitting his signature on the cheque in question and handing it to the complainant, and the legal presumption SURBHI of issuance Digitally signed by SURBHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 ANAND 16:00:46 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 12 of 16 of cheque in discharge of debt/liability arising in favor of complainant, the burden was upon accused to rebut such legal presumption by making out a probable defence. Such burden was not expected to have been discharged by proving defence beyond reasonable doubt, but the accused was only obligated to lay out a defence on the preponderance of probabilities.
In the present case, accused has been successful in shaking the credibility of CW-1/complainant, and thereby the claim of the complainant qua the cheque amount as is evident from the foregoing discussion.
16.8. The accused has thus, successfully rebutted the presumption of law and discharged the burden of proof by raising a probable defence that the cheque in question was not issued to complainant in discharge of his liability.
Thus, the first legal requirement is adjudicated in favor of the accused.
17. The second legal requirement is:
"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."
The cheque in question, i.e. Ex. CW-1/A is dated 15.09.2021. Returning memo, i.e. Ex. CW-1/B is dated 16.09.2021. Hence, it is proved that the cheque in question was presented within the period of its validity and accused has failed to controvert the said fact.
Thus, the second legal requirement is adjudicated in favor of the complainant.
Digitally signedSURBHI by SURBHI GUPTA ANAND GUPTA Date:
ANAND 2026.01.12 16:00:52 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 13 of 16
18. The third legal requirement is:
"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."
Section 146 NI Act presumes the fact of dishonor of cheque upon production of bank's slip or memo having the official mark denoting that the cheque in question has been dishonored. This is also a rebuttable presumption and upon production of such bank memo, the burden shifts upon accused to disprove the same.
In the instant case, a presumption has been raised in favor of complainant by virtue of Section 146 NI Act that the cheque in question was dishonored for the reason stated in the bank return memo viz. ' Funds Insufficient'. The abovementioned reason for the dishonor of the cheque in question falls squarely within the ambit of the offence defined u/s 138 NI Act. Therefore, the burden was upon the accused to rebut this presumption by establishing some reasonable justification for the same but accused has not disputed the reason for its dishonor.
Thus, the third legal requirement is adjudicated in favor of the complainant.
19. The fourth legal requirement is:
"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 thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid."
In the instant case, the cheque in issue was returned dishonored on 16.09.2021 (Ex. CW-1/B). The complainant sent a legal demand notice Digitally signed by SURBHI SURBHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 ANAND 16:00:59 +0530 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 14 of 16 dated 27.09.2021 (Ex. CW-1/C) addressed to accused. Postal receipt dated 04.10.2021 (Ex. CW-1/D) is also on record. Thus, it is proved that the legal notice was sent to the accused within thirty days of receipt of intimation of dishonor of the cheque in issue. Accused has also failed to dispute the same.
Thus, the fourth legal requirement is adjudicated in favor of the complainant.
20. The fifth legal requirement is:
"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."
Accused has denied receipt of legal notice and however, he has admitted the address mentioned on the legal demand notice to be his correct address.
Thus, it can be said that the legal notice was properly addressed to the correct address of accused and by virtue of presumption u/s 27 General Clauses Act, accused is deemed to have received the legal notice if the notice has been sent to correct address by post.
20.1.Even otherwise, law expects a person pleading non-receipt of any demand notice to prove his bona fides by making payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receiving court summons. This has been crystallized by the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & anr.: (2007) 6 SCC 555:
"17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. 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 under Digitally signed by SURBHI SURBHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND Date: 2026.01.12 CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@GauravANAND 16:01:06 +0530 Page no. 15 of 16 section 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 under section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and section 114 of the Evidence Act."
In the case at hand, despite issuance of summons and appearance of accused before the court, accused has failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant and thus is precluded from raising the plea of non- service of demand notice.
It is an undisputed fact and a matter of record that the accused has failed to make the payment till date, let alone making the payment within 15 days of receipt of legal notice or court summons.
Thus, the fifth legal requirement is adjudicated in favor of the complainant.
21. All the legal requirements constituting an offence u/s 138 NI Act have not been proved in favor of the complainant, and therefore, accused Gauranga Charan Sahoo @ Gaurav is held to be not guilty for the alleged offence u/s 138 NI Act in respect of the cheque in question.
Digitally signed
SURBHI by SURBHI
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT GUPTA ANAND
GUPTA Date:
today i.e. 12th January 2026 ANAND 2026.01.12
16:01:13 +0530
(Surbhi Gupta Anand)
Judicial Magistrate First Class
(N.I. Act)-08, Central
Tis Hazari/Delhi
12.01.2026
CC NI Act No. 7916/2021 Mahesh Chand Kinger Vs Gauranga Charan Sahoo@Gaurav Page no. 16 of 16