Delhi District Court
A S Shoe Accessories Pvt Ltd vs Om Footwear on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JMFC (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT -01, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
(Presided Over by SH. SHUBHAM GUPTA)
Case No. Ct. Cases/24600/2016
Unique Case ID No.
In the matter of :-
A. S. SHOE ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD. ... Complainant
VS.
OM FOOTWEAR ... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : M/s A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd.
2. Name of Accused : SH. Himanshu Singhal (Proprietor of Om
Footwear)
3. Offence complained of or proved : Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of Filing : 24.12.2016
6. Date of Reserving Order : 08.05.2025
7. Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2025
8. Final Order : CONVICTED
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
JUDGMENT SHUBHAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
17:29:58 +0530
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 1 of 14
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint has been filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter "NI Act") by M/s. A.S. Shoes Accessories Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter "complainant") against
Sh. Himanshu Singhal (hereinafter "accused").
The substance of allegations, as contained in the complaint, are as follows:
2. That the complainant company is running a business of manufacturing and trading of pigments,
release agents for polyurethane shoe sole finishing chemicals and chemicals for footwear industries.
3. That during the course of the business transaction the accused approached the complaints from time
to time for the supply of chemical for shoe manufacturing material/ PU system for footwear etc of
various qualities.
4. That the accused has purchased some goods from the complainant and the complainant supplied the
goods to accused and raised bills against the same from time to time.
5. That against those bills and after satisfying the accused himself in regard to the goods received by
the accused from the complainant, the accused issued two cheques out of which one cheque bearing
number 061748 dated 22.07.2016, another cheque bearing number 061782 dated 27.07.2016, each
amounting to rupees 5 Lakh in favor of the complainant in discharge of his liability.
6. That as per the accused person's instruction when the complainant presented the cheques issued by
the accused for the encashment through its banker Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Branch Punjabi
Bagh, New Delhi but both the above-mentioned cheques were returned unpaid vide return memo
reports dated 14.10.2016 having remarks "payment stopped by drawer".
7. That the complainant informed the accused person about the dishonor of the above said cheques but
the accused did not pay any heed towards the payment of the cheques amount.
8. That finally the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 03.11.2016 through his counsel to the
accused through speed post thereby demanding the cheque amount from the accused but the same
were returned with remarks "left without address".
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 2 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
17:30:09 +0530
9. That thereafter, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused for the
dishonour of the cheques in question.
B. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE & NOTICE
10. Pre-summoning evidence was led by the complainant and on finding a prima facie case, the accused
was summoned to face trial vide order dated 24.12.2016. Notice against the accused was framed on
27.08.2018. He took the following plea of defence at the stage of framing of notice:
I am the proprietor of accused no. 1 firm. There were business transactions with the
complainant. However, the material was not supplied on time and were defective. Therefore,
the transaction was stopped and the cheques which were issued for advance payment were
stopped from clearance. Complainant has misused the cheque in question.
Only the cheque bearing no. 061748 dated 22.07.2016 for Rs 5 lakh bears my signatures and
also filled up by me.
Cheque bearing no. 061782 dated 27.07.2016 for Rs 5 lakh does not bear my signatures nor
filled up by me.
No, I have not received the above said legal notice. However, the same bears my correct
address.
C. COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
11. During the trial, the complainant has led the following oral and documentary evidence against the
accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
Oral & Documentary Evidence
Ex.CW1/1 and CW1/2 Cheques in question
Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/4 Return memos dated October 14, 2016
Ex. CW1/5 Legal Notice dated November 03, 2016
Ex.CW1/6 (Colly) Original Postal receipts
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 3 of 14
Digitally signed
SHUBHAM by SHUBHAM
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.26
17:30:19 +0530
Ex.CW1/7 & CW1/8 Returned Postal Envelopes
Ex. CW1/9A Board Resolution in favour of AR.
Ex. CW1/10 (Colly) Bills and Ledger statement
Ex.CW1/A Evidence by way of affidavit
D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain
the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, his statement under Section 313 CrPC was
recorded without oath. In reply, the accused denied all the allegations against him. The accused
submitted the following in his statement under section 313 CrPC:
a) It is correct that I am the proprietor of M/s. OM footwear. It is correct that I received the goods
from the complainant via the bills annexed in Exhibit CW1/10. However, the material supplied
by the complainant was defective and I told them to take the return of the material. The
complainant also took a return of some of the material. I cannot say anything about the ledger
account maintained by the complainant as the same is prepared by him. I cannot say anything
about the VAT form marked CW1/X1.
b) The signatures on Exhibit CW1/1 belong to me and I have filled up the amount in words and in
figures in this cheque. The other particulars have not been filled up by me. The signatures on
Exhibit CW1/2 does not belong to me and I have not filled up any particular of these cheques.
c) Both of my cheques were misplaced due to which I had stopped the payment of these cheques. I
did not receive the legal notice. However, the address mentioned in the legal notice was mine. I
had left this address on 1st of August 2016. The complainant company was duly aware about
the change in address as the representative/salesperson of the company used to visit my
changed address as well.
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 4 of 14
Digitally signed
SHUBHAM by SHUBHAM
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.26
17:30:31 +0530
d) I did not receive legal notice.
e) The material supplied by the complainant was defective. These cheques were never given to the
complainant company. The cheques were misplaced and I stopped the payment of the same. The
complainant has misused my cheques.
13. The accused led DE and examined Sh. Saurav Kumar, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, azadpur
Branch as DW1 and Sh. M.S. Mishra, a private handwriting expert as DW2. Thereafter, the matter
was listed for final arguments. After listening to final arguments from both sides, the matter was
reserved for pronouncement. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on
record.
E. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT
14. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be pertinent to discuss the legal
standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI
Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence, as highlighted below:-
a) The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for payment of
money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
b) The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other
liability;
c) The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the
account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that
account on an agreement made with that bank;
d) A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the
cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of
information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank.
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 5 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
17:30:43 +0530
e) The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of notice.
15. In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
F. ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
16. The foundational requirement for establishing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is that the cheque in question must have been drawn by the accused on an
account maintained by him with a banker. This requirement stems from the plain language of the
provision and is a sine qua non before the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI
Act can even be invoked.
17. In the present case, the complainant has placed on record the original cheque Ex. CW1/1 and Ex.
CW1/2 which he claims was issued by the accused towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
The complainant asserts that these cheques were handed over by the accused in discharge of his
legal liability. However, this assertion is contested partly qua cheque bearing no. 061782 Ex.
CW1/2 in material terms by the accused. Qua Cheque no. 061748 Ex. CW1/1, the accused has
admitted the signatures and filling up the details on the same and hence, the execution of CW1/1 is
proved in the present case.
18. Qua the second cheque in question, the accused in his defence evidence has contested that that he
did not draw or sign the cheque bearing no. 061782 Ex. CW1/2. He has categorically denied the
execution of the cheque and alleged that the same has been misused.
19. In support of his denial, the accused has relied upon the testimony of DW1 and DW2, the bank
official from the concerned branch and the private handwriting expert. Both the aforesaid witnesses
have deposed that the cheque bearing no. 061782 does not bear the signature of the accused
person . The Bank official has also produced bank account form which is Ex. DW1/1 and perusal
of the same in respect of the signatures of the accused in the bank form and the cheque bearing no.
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 6 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
17:30:52 +0530
061782 reveals that the signatures are different and DW2 has also given his report which is Ex.
DW2/1. DW2 has also deposed that the cheque bearing no. 061782 does not bear the signatures of
the accused. The complainant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the defence witnesses
and the complainant chose not to do any cross-examination of any of the defence witnesses. Hence,
the testimony of the DW1 and DW2 has gone unrebutted. The depositions of the bank witness and
the handwriting expert significantly strengthens the defence version that the cheque bearing no.
061782 was not signed by the accused.
20. A crucial document that further fortifies the defence case qua cheque bearing no. 061782 Ex.
CW1/2 is the cheque return memo dated 14.10.2016, which records the dishonour reason as:
"Payment stopped by the drawer." This indicates that stop payment instructions were issued by the
account holder before the cheque was presented for clearance. This conduct of the accused, of
issuing stop-payment instructions aligns with his claim that he took timely action to prevent misuse
of a cheque Ex. CW1/2 that had not been duly executed by him.
21. In the absence of any admission by the accused regarding his signature on the cheque and in light of
the fact that the complainant has not undertaken any step to prove the signature through expert
witness, the execution of the cheque no. 061782 Ex. CW1/2 remains unproved.
22. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kanshi Ram Bansal
vs. Suman Malhotra, Crl. M.C. 3876/2011 had noted that "11. In the case of denial of signature of
the drawer of a cheque, the best witness would be the concerned bank manager and not a
handwriting expert...."
23. In view of the discussion above, this court is of the view that the first ingredient remains unfulfilled
qua cheque bearing no. 061782 Ex. CW1/2. Qua the cheque bearing no. 061748, the first
ingredients is satisfied in view of the admission of the accused regarding the signature on the same.
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 7 of 14
Digitally signed
SHUBHAM by SHUBHAM
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.26
17:31:06 +0530
24. In respect of the second ingredient, in order to attract the penal liability under Section 138 of the NI
Act, it is not sufficient for the complainant to merely prove that a cheque was issued and
dishonoured; he must also establish that the said cheque was issued by the accused towards the
discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, either in full or in part. The existence of such a
liability is the core of the offence and must be proven either by invoking the statutory presumptions
or by independent documentary and oral evidence.
25. In the present case, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque bearing no. 061748 and
has also admitted that the details on the aforesaid cheque Ex. CW1/1 was filled by him for an
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
26. The combined effect of section 118(a) NI Act and section 139 of the NI Act is that a presumption
exists that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of
debt or other liability. In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16), their
Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
27. Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of
the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in
State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on the Court to
raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the
presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the
burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a
presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which
describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs.
Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence,
because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
28. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court, having analysed all the concerned provisions in
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 at page 432, came
down to the following conclusion:
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 8 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
17:31:15 +0530
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section
118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the
following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a
presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the
accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is
that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or
the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. 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 they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his
defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
29. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441
that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of
existence of a legally enforceable debt.
30. In order to discharge the aforesaid burden, it has been contended by learned counsel for the accused
that there are inherent inconsistencies in the version of the complainant, as listed below, which lead
to a probable defence in favour of the accused:
Contention: There exists no legally enforceable liability since the material supplied by the
complainant was defective
31. In the present case, the accused had admitted that there was business relationship with the
complainant and the complainant used to supply goods to the accused. The complainant has
produced invoices and ledger statement on the basis which the present amount is being claimed in
the present case from the accused. On the other hand, the accused had taken a defence that though
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 9 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
GUPTA
SHUBHAM
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
17:31:28
+0530
there was goods supplied by the complainant, however, those goods were defective and some of the
goods were in fact taken by the complainant and hence, no legal liability remained to be paid by the
accused to the complainant.
32. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the accused has never disputed the business relationship with the
complainant. The only dispute the accused has raised is that the goods/material supplied by the
complainant was defective and hence, he is not under an obligation to pay any amount to the
complainant.
33. The onus to prove that the goods supplied being defective was on the accused. Perusal of the
record reveals that the accused has not brought anything on record to indicate that the accused had
raised any objection qua the defect in the goods supplied by the complainant. Neither accused
produced any documentary evidence/ written communication in this regard. There is nothing on
record to show that goods supplied by the complainant was defective or of sub-standard quality.
Further, no document has been produced in respect of the return of certain goods to the complainant
as claimed by the accused. Hence, in the absence of any proof, this court is not inclined to believe
the version of the accused that the goods supplied by the complainant were defective or of sub-
standard quality. Further, the accused has not disputed the ledger statement as produced by the
complainant.
34. In view of the above discussion, the court finds that there exists a legally enforceable liability
against the accused in the present case and the present contention is decided against the accused in
respect of cheque bearing no. 061748 i.e. Ex. CW1/1.
35. Qua the cheque bearing no. 061782 i.e. Ex. CW1/2, the complainant has not been able to prove the
execution of the same, hence, the presumption cannot be invoked qua the said cheque Ex. CW1/2.
36. In respect of third ingredient, the cheque in question was returned unpaid vide Ex. CW1/3 & Ex.
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 10 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
GUPTA
SHUBHAM
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
17:31:39
+0530
CW1/4. As per Section 146 of NI Act, Bank's slip is prima facie evidence of proof of dishonor. The
accused has not disputed the same.
37. In respect of fourth ingredient, The complainant has proved on record legal notice Ex. CW1/5. The
accused has admitted that the address mentioned on the legal demand notice is his correct address at
the notice framing stage. However, at the later stages of the trial, including the cross-examination
of the complainant witness and at recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused
had taken a stand that the legal notice was sent on an incorrect address and the complainant was
aware about the factum of the change in address of the accused. Despite being aware of the factum
of change in address, it was contended by the accused that the complainant had sent the legal notice
deliberately at an incorrect address and hence, the complaint cannot be entertained. The Ld.
Counsel for the complainant has contended that the legal notice was sent on the last known address
of the accused from where accused used to run his business and the accused himself has admitted
that he was running his business from the said address till August, 2016.
38. Perusal of the record reveals that the legal notice in question is dated November 03, 2016 and it was
actually sent to the accused on the same date. It is an admitted position on behalf of the accused
that the address mentioned on the legal notice was the address of the accused from where he used to
run operation of his business. However, the dispute is pertaining to fact of the date of the vacation
of the aforesaid premised by the accused and the knowledge of the complainant in respect of the
same. During the cross-examination of complainant's AR, the accused gives a suggestion that the
complainant had sent the legal notice at the wrong address of the accused despite being aware of
the same. The said suggestion is flatly denied by the complainant's AR. It is contended on behalf
of the accused that the complainant company was aware of the change in address of the accused
since the representatives of the complainant company used to visit the premises of the accused at
the new address.
39. However, the accused had not been able to produce any material on record in support of his
contention that actually there was change in address and the said factum of the change in address
was in knowledge of the complainant and despite the knowledge of the change in address, the
complainant addressed the legal notice in question at the incorrect address. The accused could have
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 11 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
17:31:49
+0530
brought on record any document pertaining to new rent agreement or termination of the rent
agreement at the old premises from where the operations of the business were continuing or could
have brought on record any communication by which the factum of the change of address was
brought to the knowledge of the complainant or could have called the representatives or sales
persons of the complainant as a witness in support of his contention that they used to visit his
premises at the new address and were actually having the knowledge of the change in address of the
accused. The accused neither took any steps during the course of the trial nor produced any
supporting document. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this court is not inclined to
accept the contention of the accused that the legal notice was sent at the incorrect address. Rather
in view of the admitted position of the accused qua the address mentioned on the legal notice as that
of his old address of the firm through which he used to do business dealings with the complainant
company, it would be appropriate to draw an inference that the complainant had sent the legal
notice at the last known address of the accused and thus, complied with the statutory requirement.
40. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that " Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent
by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s.
138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made
payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the
summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within
15 days of receipt of the summons from the court alongwith the copy of the complaint u/s. 138 of
the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s. 138,
by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section
114 of the Evidence Act".
41. In the present case, a common legal demand notice was issued by the complainant to the accused
calling upon him to make the payment of the cheques amount in question i.e. Ex. CW1/1 and
CW1/2 and a specific demand was made qua both the cheque by clearly mentioning the details of
each cheque. It is also a settled position of the law that when the notice also contains a claim by
way of cost, interest etc. and gives breakup of the claim of the cheque amount, interest, damages
etc., which are separately specified, the claim for interest, cost, etc. would be superfluous and these
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 12 of 14
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
17:31:59
+0530
additional claims being severable would not invalidate the notice. (Suman Sethi v. Ajay K.
Churiwala 2000(2) SCC 380). In the present notice also, the demand was specific qua both the
cheques in question and the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption qua cheque bearing
no. 061748 in the present case and the qua cheque bearing no. 061782 the accused cannot be held
liable since the execution of the cheque remained unfulfilled by the complainant.
42. In respect of fifth ingredient, the fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt
of the legal notice is also not disputed.
43. Further, the complainant has contended that there are inconsistency in the stand being taken by the
accused at different stages of the trial. It is a settled position of the law that the complainant has to
stand on his own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness in the case of the defence.
Hence, the contention of the complainant on this ground is devoid of any merit.
CONCLUSION
44. In conclusion, I am of the view that accused has not been able to raise probable defence in the
present case qua cheque bearing no. 061748 i.e. Ex. CW1/1.
45. Accordingly, in light of the scheme of the NI Act, a statutory presumption exists in favour of the
complainant. The statutory presumption cannot be rebutted in such a casual manner. There must be
something concrete on record to rebut the same.
46. Hence, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion is that the
accused has failed to rebut the onus put on him by virtue of the presumptions enshrined in Section 118
and 139 of the NI Act qua cheque bearing no. 061748 i.e. Ex. CW1/1.
47. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in establishing his case
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had issued the cheque bearing no. 061748 in discharge of his
legally enforceable liability. The presumptions under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act were
drawn against the accused. The accused has miserably failed to rebut the said presumption by raising a
A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 13 of 14
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
17:32:11
+0530
probable defence qua cheque bearing no. 061748.
48. Qua cheque bearing no. 061782, the complainant has not been able to prove the execution of the
cheque Ex. CW1/2 and hence, the essential ingredients are not fulfilled qua the cheque bearing no.
061782 and the accused cannot be made liable for the same.
49. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed qua cheque bearing no. 061748 and the
accused, Sh. Himanshu Singhal is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 qua cheque bearing no. 061748 Ex. CW1/1 only. Let the convicted person be
heard separately on quantum of sentence.
50. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
51. This judgment bears 14 pages and each page bears my signatures. Judgment be uploaded on the
website forthwith.
Pronounced in open court.
ORDER :- Convicted qua cheque No. 061748 Digitally signed SHUBHAM by SHUBHAM GUPTA Date: 26.07.2025. GUPTA Date: 2025.07.26 17:32:24 +0530 (SHUBHAM GUPTA) JMFC(N.I.Act)Digital Court-01/ SouthWest District, Dwarka Court 26.07.2025 A.S. Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Footwear Page No. 14 of 14