Delhi District Court
Neeraj Singhal vs Tushar Kumar on 26 November, 2025
CNR No. DLSE020285302022
CC No. 6210/2022
Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
DLSE020285302022
IN THE COURT OF AJAY NARWAL, RELIEVING JMFC/CIVIL
JUDGE, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA.
Mr. Neeraj Singhal,
Proprietor of M/s Aarvee Food,
Registered office at:-
S/O Sh. Satya Narayan Singhal
C/O 1931-C-19, Ground Floor,
Govindpuri Extn., Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019 ................ Complainant
Versus
Mr. Tushar Kumar,
Proprietor of M/s Triveni Traders,
Office At:
Gali No. 09, Sainik Enclave,
Ec-1, Dk Mohan Garden,
West Delhi, Delhi .................... Accused
CNR Number DLSE020285302022
Offence complained of U/s 138 NI Act
Plea of the Accused Accused pleaded not guilty
Date of filing 27.07.2022
Date of institution of the Case 27.07.2022
Date of decision 26.11.2026
Final Order Convicted
Digitally
signed by
AJAY
CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 1/17
NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26
16:20:23
+0545
CNR No. DLSE020285302022
CC No. 6210/2022
Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
The judgment in the present case was reserved when the undersigned
was posted as JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-02, South-East, however,
vide order no. 46/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI.E.2(a)/2025 dated 18.11.2025
of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, undersigned was transferred to Dwarka
Courts as Relieving JMFC/Civil Judge. As per the aforesaid order of
Hon'ble High Court, the judicial officer shall pronounce the judgment
in those matters which are reserved for judgement even after the
transfer. Hence, the judgement in the present case is being pronounced
by the undersigned in the capacity of Relieving JMFC/Civil Judge.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter i.e. CC No. 6210/2022 filed by complainant Neeraj Singhal against the dishonour of a cheque bearing no. 000004, dated 02.06.2022 for a sum of Rs. 6,27,166/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, Main Najafgarh Road branch, Delhi (henceforth, the cheque in question).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of case are that the complainant is engaged in the business of trading of tea, spices, etc. In the month of December, 2020, the accused came in contact with the complainant with regard to supply of tea, spices, etc., in bulk/large quantities on order basis from him and accused assured the complainant that the payment of said goods shall be made by him on receipt of goods on raising the Tax Invoices against the orders made by him, and after lots of deliberation and discussions, the complainant agreed for supplying the goods to the accused on demand basis. Accused started placing orders to the complainant qua supply of the goods in huge Digitally signed by AJAY CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 2/17 NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:20:30 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar quantity from December, 2020. The complainant as per request of the accused supplied the goods in the quantities desired by the accused, and on the basis of the said supply of goods, the complainant raised several Tax Invoices from December, 2020 till March, 2022, and the said Tax Invoices were received and acknowledged by the accused. After supply of the goods and raising Tax Invoices as mentioned above, the accused made payments to the complainant as per Tax Invoices, and this continued smoothly till March, 2022, and when the complainant requested the accused to clear the dues of Rs. 6,77,166/- but the accused instead of making the payment, assured the complainant that the due amount shall be cleared by second week of April, 2022. The complainant accepted the request of accused agreed to wait till second week of April, 2022, for the accused to clear the amount. In the second week of April 2022, accused made the payment of Rs. 50,000 only and requested the complainant to wait for some time. Subsequently, after several requests and reminders, the accused finally issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant towards his pending liability.
3. Thereafter, upon instructions of the accused, the cheque in question was presented for encashment in the concerned Bank and same got dishonoured with the reason "payment stopped by drawer" vide returning memo dated 03.06.2022.
4. Subsequently, complainant issued the legal demand notice dated 21.06.2022 to accused. Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NARWAL CC No. 6210/2022 NARWAL Date: Page No. 3/17 2025.11.26 16:20:32 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
5. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 21.11.2022, accused Tushar Kumar was summoned in the present case. On appearance of accused, notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.PC was served upon the accused on 12.12.2023 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he had distribution agreement with the complainant company and for entry purposes, the cheque in question was issued. It is further stated that when he closed his business, he requested the complainant company for account and the complainant company received the goods lying with him against which he has the receiving but failed to do the account. He further stated that he has no liability towards the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had forged his signature on the cheque in question to file frivolous complaint. Accused denied his signature on the cheque in question and admitted having received the legal notice.
6. It is pertinent to mention that pursuant to the notice served upon accused, Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted before the Court that he has no objection, if accused is permitted to cross examine the complainant. In view of the submission of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, accused was given an opportunity to cross examined the complainant. Complainant examined himself as CW-1 in post- summoning evidence, and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. CW1/1 along with the following documents: -
Digitally signed by AJAYCC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 4/17 NARWAL Date: 2025.11.26 16:20:36 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar S.No. Documents relied upon Exhibited as: 1. Ledger account CW1/A 2. Tax invoices CW 1/B 3. Original cheque CW 1/C 4. Original return memo dated 03.06.2022 CW 1/D 5. User data uploaded on GST Website CW 1/E 6. Legal demand notice CW 1/F 7. Original postal receipts. CW 1/G 8. Tracking reports. CW 1/H 9. Certificate u/s 65B IEA CW 1/I
7. Complainant was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused at length and on 06.08.2025, complainant closed the CE in the present case. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 29.08.2024 by accused. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and he, inter-alia, stated that after dispute arose with the complainant, he returned goods worth Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant but the account statement does not reflect the said amount. He further stated that he had made payment of Rs. 50,000/- in April 2022 but, he had told the complainant in clearing bills in the market which were raised by him after showing the schemes of complainant. He further stated that he has also made payment of Rs. 1,21,000/- to the complainant after receiving the legal demand notice. On being asked whether accused want to lead defence evidence, he replied in affirmative. Thereafter, accused appeared in the witness box to examined himself in his defence Digitally signed by AJAY CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 5/17 NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:20:38 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar evidence and he was examined, cross-examined, and discharged as DW-1. Subsequently, accused closed the defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard the counsels for both parties at length, considered the evidence led by them carefully and have perused the court records.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
9. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes dishonour of cheque an offence. It provides that " where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both".
Digitally
signed by
AJAY
AJAY NARWAL
NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26
16:20:42
CC No. 6210/2022 +0545 Page No. 6/17
CNR No. DLSE020285302022
CC No. 6210/2022
Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
10. 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:-
1st Ingredient: 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;
2nd Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
3rd Ingredient: 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;
4th Ingredient: 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; and 5th Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
11. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the accused i.e. an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Thus, normally the initial burden to prove is on the complainant/ prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Also, the standard of proof is beyond Digitally signed CC No. 6210/2022 by AJAY Page No. 7/17 AJAY NARWAL NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:20:46 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar reasonable doubt. However, in offences under section 138 of the Act, there is a reverse onus clause contained in sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, has held as under:-
"Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheque, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.
12. In order to prove the aforesaid ingredients, the complainant has proved the following:-
(a) The complainant has proved the original cheque in question i.e. Ex. CW1/C, which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period.
(b) The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo Ex. CW1/D due to the reason, "Payment stopped by Drawer". The same is also not disputed by accused.
Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NARWAL NARWAL Date:
CC No. 6210/2022 2025.11.26
16:20:50
Page No. 8/17
+0545
CNR No. DLSE020285302022
CC No. 6210/2022
Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
(c) Complainant has proved on record legal notice Ex. CW1/F and postal receipts Ex. CW 1/G and tracking reports Ex. CW 1/H. Accused also admitted that he has received the legal demand notice at the time of stage of 251 Cr.PC. As such, on the basis of the above, the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act as discussed in aforesaid para 10 stands proved against the accused.
13. As far as the proof of second ingredient in para 10 is concerned, the complainant is required to prove that the cheque in question was issued by the accused and it was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt. It is pertinent to mention that accused has denied his signature on the cheque in question at the stage 251 and 313 of CrPC. The reason for dishonour of cheque in question as per return memo was 'payment stopped by drawer' whereas accused stated that his signature was forged on the cheque in question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs State of Gujarat & anr. (Slp(Crl.) No(S). 16641 Of 2023) has observed that "14. Section 118 sub-clause (e) of the NI Act provides a clear presumption regarding indorsements made on the negotiable instrument being in order in which they appear thereupon. Thus, the presumption of the indorsements on the cheque being genuine operates in favour of the holder in due course of the cheque in question which would be the complainant herein. In case, the accused intends to rebut such presumption, he would be required to lead evidence to this effect.
Digitally
signed by
AJAY
AJAY NARWAL
CC No. 6210/2022 NARWAL Date:
Page No. 9/17
2025.11.26
16:20:53
+0545
CNR No. DLSE020285302022
CC No. 6210/2022
Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
16. Thus, we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque. In the present case, accused has not taken steps to prove that signature on the cheque in question does not belong to him and view of section 118 (e) of NI act, accused cannot rebut the presumption by merely stating the cheque in question does not bear his signature specifically when the reason for dishonour of cheque in question is not the signature mismatch. As such, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the second ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act as discussed in aforesaid para 10 stands proved against the accused.
14. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused to raise a probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recoverable debt arisen in favour of the complainant. It is now to be examined as to whether the accused has brought any material on record for dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
15. In the present case, when the notice was served upon accused then he admitted that he had distribution agreement with the complainant. Therefore, accused has admitted that he has business Digitally signed by AJAY CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 10/17 NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:20:57 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar transaction with the complainant. However, he, inter-alia, has taken the defence at the stage of 251 of CrPC that complainant company received the goods lying with him and he has receiving with him in this regard, however, the amount of said goods was not deducted and complainant company has failed to do the account and he has no liability towards the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that when the complainant was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused then he never confronted him regarding the receiving of return of goods which the accused had in his possession. Needless to mention that accused stated at the stage of 251 of CrPC that he has the receiving of the returns goods. When the notice was served upon the accused under section 251 of CrPC then accused submitted that he has no liability towards the complainant, however, during his examination in his defence evidence he stated that he has made payment of Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 41,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- on 13.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 and 22.08.2022 to the complainant. This Court failed to understand when the accused has no liability towards the complainant then why he is making aforesaid payments to the complainant. The same cast shadow of doubt on the defence of the accused.
16. During the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that accused has paid Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 41,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- on 13.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 and 22.08.2022 to the complainant as such cheque in question is much more than the liability of the accused. The said argument of the accused is not tenable as the Digitally signed by AJAY CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 11/17 NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:21:00 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar aforesaid payments were made only after the initiation of the present complainant and not before presentation the cheque in question in the concerned Bank. Therefore, the defence of the accused that cheque in question is much more than the liability is rejected.
17. It is pertinent to mention that when the statement of accused was recorded then he stated that he has returned the goods worth of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant, however, accused failed to produce on record any relevant document or verbal understanding between him and complainant to show that he was entitled to returns the goods and complainant was liable to deduct the amount of goods which was return by him from his pending liability. It is apposite to mention that accused stated during his testimony that "I further made payment of Rs. 35,000/-, 41,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant on 13.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 and 22.08.2022 respectively.....the remaining outstanding liability balance is stuck in market ." Therefore, accused impliedly agreeing that after making the aforesaid payments, the remaining liability is stuck in market. Moreover, during his cross examination at the stage of DE, accused stated that "the goods supplied to me by the complainant is further supplied by me in the market on a higher rate as it includes margin." The same is in contradiction to the defence of the accused that he has no liability towards the complainant.
18. It is pertinent to mention that accused has taken the defence that he has given the cheque in question as security and he has no liability Digitally signed by AJAY NARWAL AJAY CC No. 6210/2022 NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 Page No. 12/17 16:21:03 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar towards the complainant and during his cross examination at the stage of DE, he admitted that he has not made any complaint with respect to cheque in question. This Court has failed to understand that when the accused knew that cheque in question is given as security to the complainant and same may be misused by the complainant than why he has not made a single complaint against the complainant before the concerned bank/police officials. It is difficult to believe that accused did not take action despite knowing that complainant may misuse the cheque in question. Under normal circumstances, any prudent person will either go to the bank and freeze his/her bank account and will also made complaint before the police for lodging FIR of cheating. However, in the present no action has been taken by the accused to the reasons best known to him and same raises a doubt regarding the veracity of defence taken by the accused.
19. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Jain Vs Sanjeev Kumar Singh & othr (CRL.A. 1248/2019) has observed as follows: -
"14. When presumption under Section 139 was raised, Trial Court ought to have conducted proceedings basis that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability towards the complainant. At this juncture, the onus was on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139. Had the accused been successful in rebutting said presumption, the onus would have then shifted onto the complainant/appellant. The fundamental flaw on part of Trial Court was failing to note effect of the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. As a result, Trial Court erroneously proceeded to deliberate upon want of evidence on part of appellant/complainant i.e. no interest was charged, friendly relations between the parties were not proved, Digitally signed by AJAY CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY NARWAL Page No. 13/17 NARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:21:06 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar financial capacity not established, and most importantly, guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15.6 This brings us to yet another flaw in the impugned judgement i.e. conclusion that respondent/accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 only on the basis of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, having not led any defence evidence. To this effect, observations of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in V.S. Yadav v.
Reena 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3294 are relevant; same are extracted as under:
"8. The respondent has placed reliance on Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, 2008 Crl. L.J. 1172, which is also the case relied upon by the Trial Court. In this judgment itself Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that Court should not be blind to the ground realities and the rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case. The Trial Court in this case turned a blind eye to the fact that every accused facing trial, whether under Section 138 of N.I. Act or under any penal law, when charged with the offence, pleads not guilty and takes a stand that he has not committed the offence. Even in the cases where loan is taken from a bank and the cheques issued to the bank stand dishonoured, the stand taken is same. Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act. If mere statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. or under Section 281, Cr. P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But, it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued. It was for the accused to prove if no loan was taken why he did not write a letter to the complainant for return of the cheque. Unless the accused had proved that he acted like a normal businessman/prudent person entering into a contract he could not have rebutted the presumption under Section 139, N.I. Act. If no loan was given, but cheques were retained, he immediately would have protested and asked the cheques to be returned and if still cheques were not returned, he would have served a notice as complainant. Nothing was proved in this case. 9. In this case no evidence, whatsoever, was produced by the accused and the Trial Court travelled extra steps, not permitted by law, to presume that the presumption has stood rebutted. I, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. (emphasis supplied).
Digitally
signed by
AJAY NARWAL
AJAY
CC No. 6210/2022 NARWAL
Date:
2025.11.26 Page No. 14/17
16:21:10
+0545
CNR No. DLSE020285302022
CC No. 6210/2022
Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar
16. Thus, respondent no. 1 having not led defence evidence, his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be read as evidence for the purpose of rebutting presumption raised under Section 139 NI Act. In this light, merely pleading not guilty would not suffice to rebut this presumption either.
17. We often find that acquittals in Section 138 NI Act proceedings place the burden of proving the existence of the debt on the complainant, which is diametrically opposite to the presumption placed on the accused under Section 139 NI Act. The accused often gets away with an acquittal, despite having tendered and even admitting to the cheque, merely because the complainant is unable to produce documents to support the existence of the debt (usually in the form of a friendly loan provided in cash, which does not have any document trail). It would be unwise for the court to not acknowledge that friendly cash loans are provided by parties, sometimes based on small savings of the lender. In these circumstances rather than focussing on the question as to why the accused gave the cheque in the first place (which he or she admits), the complainant is left unhinged for inability to provide any documentation. Often when accused is asked by the court, as to for what purpose they gave the cheque in the first place, a cogent and rational answer is not forthcoming.
18. Presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act is essentially based on pure common sense. Instead of having the accused prove to the contrary, the accused is acquitted, as in this case,without having led any defence evidence and purely relying upon the inconsistencies in the affirmative proof provided by the complainant. The law and its application, is therefore turned on its head.
20. It is pertinent to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the aforesaid judgement that when presumption under Section 139 was raised, then the Trial Court ought to have conducted proceedings basis that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability towards the complainant and the onus was on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139. In the present case, accused has remain unsuccessful in proving his defence and in view of the aforesaid judgement of Delhi Digitally signed by AJAY NARWAL CC No. 6210/2022 AJAY Date: Page No. 15/17 NARWAL 2025.11.26 16:21:12 +0545 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar High Court, accused cannot take the rebut the presumption merely finding loop holes in the case of the complainant case without proving his defence.
21. On a consideration of the totality of factors pleaded by the accused in his defence, it becomes clear that the accused has merely paid lip service to his defence and has not led any cogent evidence to establish it or draw any circumstance against the case of the Complainant which probabilizes his defence. Accordingly, accused Mr. Tushar Kumar is convicted of the offence u/s 138 NI Act. Let a copy of Digitally signed this judgment be given to the convict free of cost. AJAY by AJAY NARWAL Date: NARWAL 2025.11.26 16:21:25 +0545 (AJAY NARWAL) Relieving JMFC/Civil Judge South West, Dwarka Court 26.11.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and same bears my signatures. Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NARWAL NARWAL Date: 2025.11.26 16:21:21 +0545 (AJAY NARWAL) Relieving JMFC/Civil Judge South West, Dwarka Court 26.11.2025 Certificate The convict has been apprised that he is entitled to avail the services of LAC for pursuing higher remedies which includes filing of appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The convict has also been apprised about the address and the contact of concerned official from South East CC No. 6210/2022 Page No. 16/17 CNR No. DLSE020285302022 CC No. 6210/2022 Neeraj Singhal Vs. Tushar Kumar District Legal Services Authority, Utility Block, Ground Floor, Saket Court, New Delhi, Phone No. 29561040, email:- [email protected].
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY NARWAL NARWAL Date: 2025.11.26 16:21:16 +0545 (AJAY NARWAL) Relieving JMFC/Civil Judge South West, Dwarka Court 26.11.2025 CC No. 6210/2022 Page No. 17/17