Delhi District Court
M/S.Devi Karam Associates vs M/S.Awe World on 7 August, 2025
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)-05,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSW02-015107-2020
Ct. Cases No. 10040/2020
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
1. Name and address of the : M/s Devi Karam Associates,
complainant Office at:
H-31, S.D. Mandir Road,
Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi-110059.
Through Nitin Kumar,
Special Power of Attorney
Holder.
2. Name and address of the : M/s Awe World
accused Through its proprietor/partner,
Anoop
Plot No. 6, Udyog Vihar
Extension, Ecotech-II, Greater
Noida-201308.
Also at:
Kocreate, Tapasya Corporate
Heights,
3rd Floor, Tower A, Sector-126,
Noida-201303.
3. Offence complained of or : Under Section 138 of the
proved Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
5. Final Order : Convicted.
Digitally signed
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 SHIV
by SHIV
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.07
Page No. 1 of 19.
15:54:37 +0530
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
6. Date of Institution : 29.07.2020
7. Date of pronouncement of : 07.08.2025
Judgment
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter, Ct. Cases No. 10040/2020 filed by complainant against the dishonour of cheque bearing no. 000022 dated 02.06.2020 for Rs. 13,47,827/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Ansals Fortune Arcade, K Block, Sector-18, Noida, U.P. (henceforth, the cheque in question).
2. Briefly stated, the facts that the complainant is a firm engaged into the business of leading supplier and has a vast experience with leading fire companies and enjoys an exceptionally good reputation in the market. Accused approached the complainant for business and requisite goods. The accused explained very high about his business dealings and assured the complainant the fair business dealing, timely and prompt payment for goods supplied on credit. The accused placed orders time to time for goods and complainant supplied the said goods as per the requisition at the desired address/destination. The complainant in good faith accepted the said representations of the accused and complainant supplied the goods time to time to the accused. The complainant supplied various consignments as and when required by the accused in safe and sound condition. In Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR Date:
2025.08.07 15:55:10 +0530 Page No. 2 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World discharge of the legal debt/liability towards the complainant, the accused issued the cheque in question. On presentation, the cheque in question were returned unpaid with with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 03.06.2020.
3. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.06.2020 to the accused through registered post calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount. It is the case of the complainant that despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
5. Pre summoning evidence was recorded and the cognizance was taken u/s 138 NI Act on 17.11.2020 and summons were issued to accused thereupon.
6. Notice under section 251 Cr.PC was framed against the accused on 15.03.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he was in business relation with the complainant company. He used to take material from the complainant company. The complainant company asked him for depositing the cheque so that they can take payment as per their convenience. He had given the cheque in question in the year 2018 when he started the business. When the cheque was given, no payment was due on him and the cheque in question was Digitally signed Ct. Case No 10040/2020 SHIV by SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.07 Page No. 3 of 19.
15:55:17 +0530
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World misused by the complainant. Accused admitted receiving of legal notice.
7. The complainant has examined himself as CW1 and filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A and he has relied upon the documents: -
Original Special Power of
1. Ex.CW1/1 (OSR)
Attorney.
Copy of invoices and goods
2. Ex.CW1/2 (colly)
receipt
3. Ex.CW1/3 Original cheque in question.
4. Ex.CW1/4 Return memo.
5. Ex.CW1/5 Legal notice
Courier receipt and e.mail
6. Ex. CW1/6 (colly)
delivery report
7. Ex. CW1/7 Delivery report of legal notice
8. Ex. CW1/8 Original returned envelope
9. Ex. CW1/9 Reply to legal notice
Statement of account maintained
10. Ex. CW1/10
by complainant.
Certificate u/s 65B of Indian
11. Ex. CW1/11
Evidence Act.
Digitally signed
by SHIV
SHIV KUMAR
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR Date:
2025.08.07
15:55:21 +0530
Page No. 4 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
8. CW1/complainant was examined in chief and cross examined on 20.05.2022, 27.07.2022, 15.09.2022, 22.12.2022, 14.07.2023 and 20.07.2024. He was discharged on 20.07.2024. Closing CE, the matter was listed for SA.
9. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr PC on 09.09.2024, after all the incriminating evidence and the documents on record were put to him. Accused had chosen to lead evidence in his defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for DE.
10. Allowing the application u/s 315 CrPC, accused was allowed to be examined as defence witness. Accused had chosen to lead evidence in his defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for DE and defence witnesses were examined as under:
i) DW1/accused was examined himself on 08.04.2025 and was cross examined on 20.05.2025, 28.06.2025 and discharged on 28.06.2025.
Thereafter DE was closed.
11. Both the counsels led their oral submissions in length. Rebuttal submissions also taken from both the counsels. The submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the judgments relied on by the parties have been considered.
Digitally
signed by
SHIV SHIV KUMAR
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.07
15:55:25
+0530 Page No. 5 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that Exhibits placed on record including Ex. CW1/14 reflect that accused had made payments qua the running accounts against goods sold to accused firm run by the accused person. He placed reliance on notice framed under section 251 CrPC and statement of accused recorded under section 313 CrPC wherein accused not only admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but also acknowledged receipt of legal notice. He argued that accused firm failed to furnish their own ledger of business with the complainant with a view to conceal incriminating evidence. He prayed for conviction of the accused.
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused started his part of final arguments by relying on provisions of the The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and The Notaries Act, 1952 along with The Notaries Rules, 1956. he argued that SPA of the complainant, Sh. Nitin Kumar lacks authority to file complaint and depose on oath as the original SPA is stamped insufficiently and notarised without any bearing any number of Notary Public. He contended that complaint is barred by limitation. He submitted that the complaint vexes the accused unlawfully as the CS(COMM) No. 47-2024 filed by the complainant against the accused based on same facts has already been decreed and the instant litigation inflicted double jeopardy on the accused. He questioned the authenticity of invoices as the same were not signed by the accused. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.
Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.07 Ct. Case No 10040/2020 15:55:29 +0530 Page No. 6 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
14. To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following: -
i. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
ii. the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
iii. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
iv. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
v. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
vi. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
Findings on Bar of Limitation
15. Complainant is a partnership firm registered in Delhi and accused is sole proprietor of the accused firm AWE World. The cheque in question is dated 02.06.2020. Return memo with remarks "insufficient funds" is dated 03.06.2020. Legal notice is Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 2025.08.07
15:55:33 +0530
Page No. 7 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World dated 11.06.2020. Tracking report of legal notice shows that accused refused to accept legal notice on 19.06.2020 and served via email ID of accused on 01.07.2020. The present complaint was filed on 27.07.2020. Timeline for the purpose of limitation is followed. Hence the present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
Presumption u/s 118(a) read with s.139 of NI Act
16. On 15.03.2022, notice was framed upon accused under section 251 Cr.P.C.. He admitted that the cheque in question belonged to him and he had signed the cheque. He admitted knowing the complainant. He stated that he received legal notice from the complainant and later sent reply to the same on 14.07.2020. He stated that he did not fill in the other particulars in the cheque and did not issue the cheque to the complainant. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused reiterated his statement and claimed that the complainant had asked him to deposit the cheque in question for starting business dealings with him.
17. The accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question at every stage; from notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. to his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, presumption under section 118(a) and under section 139 of NI Act arises against the accused. Unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for a Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 2025.08.07
15:55:37 +0530
Page No. 8 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World consideration and that the complainant received the cheque in question in discharge of a debt/ liability from the accused. Accused admitted having received the legal notice through email. He replied to legal notice to the complainant.
(Reliance placed on Triyambak S. Hegde vs Sripad decided by 3 judge bench of Hon'ble SC on 23.09.2021 and Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418; Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4SCC; K Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC510; Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC16; 8 Kalamani Tex and Ors Vs. B Balasubramanian (2021) SCC online SC 75; J. Vasantha Kumar Vs. Vipyakuman Kumar AIR 2015 SC 2240.)
18. 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 (reliance placed on Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441). It is now to be examined as to whether the accused has brought any material on record dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The accused has admitted the issuance of the cheque in question in favor of the complainant. He has further pleaded that the cheque in question was issued blank and only with signatures. Here, the presumption regarding the contents of cheque lies by virtue of provision under section Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHIV Date:
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR 2025.08.07 15:55:41 +0530 Page No. 9 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World 20 NIA and the judgment of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197.
Findings on validity of SPA (Ex. CW1/1)
19. Complaint was filed by SPA holder Nitin Kumar on behalf of complainant registered partnership firm, M/s Devi Karam Associates vide SPA dated 24.07.2020. The same is witnessed by Priyanka and Kriti, executed by partner Inderjeet Jaitley on behalf of complainant firm and notarised by Notary Public Delhi dated 27.07.2020. In the CE dated 20.05.2022 and 27.07.2022, neither any question was asked nor any suggestion was given by ld. Counsel for the accused challenging hinting at invalidity of the SPA (Ex. CW1/1) on the ground of improper notarisation. No suggestion or application was made to call the Notary Public to testify in Court. No protest was made from the side of accused as to marking the SPA Ex. CW1/1. At no point of time, execution of SPA was challenged. Signatures of the Executant and witnesses were never disputed. The SPA Ex. CW1/1 is original SPA taken on record. The same bears stamp, sign, date and "ATTESTED" stamp of the Notary Public. The witness CW1 has appeared in witness box as a consequence of execution of SPA in his favor, he has withstood the test of cross-examination and at no point admitted the SPA to be insufficiently stamped or improperly notarised. The mere fact that the ld. Counsel for the accused carried on cross-examination of CW1 on several dates subsequent to the marking of the SPA as an Exhibit, is itself Digitally signed SHIV by SHIV KUMAR Ct. Case No 10040/2020 Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.07 15:55:45 +0530 Page No. 10 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World suggestive of the intention of the side of the accused to rely on powers of CW1 to depose as a valid SPA holder. The Notaries Act, 1952, The Notaries Rules, 1956 and The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 do not state that improperly notarised or insufficiently stamped SPA cannot be read in evidence. Notarised documents carry with them strong presumption under section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is raised by this Court herein. The omission of details of registration number of Notary Public on Ex. CW1/1 appears to be a bonafide omission made in the regular course of work. It is settled law that power of attorney though insufficiently stamped or bearing stamp of notary but registration number being missing, is admissible in law unless patently barred by law. During the final arguments, ld. Counsel for the accused had made reference to and relied on various exhibits taken on record from the side of the complainant and attempted to hint at innocence of the accused, but did not question that the invoices, email communications and other documents cannot be read in evidence because the same are illegally exhibited as such having been filed by improper SPA. Marking of complainant's exhibits is neither objected to by the side of the accused nor challenged before Hon'ble Superior Courts yet. Therefore it is concluded that the side of the accused has conceded to the mark of exhibits on the documentary evidence placed on record by the SPA. In these circumstances, the side of the accused cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. Accordingly, it is held that Ex. CW1/1 constitutes valid SPA in favor of CW1.
Digitally
signed by
SHIV KUMAR
SHIV
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR
Date:
2025.08.07
15:55:49
+0530 Page No. 11 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World Analysis of Complainant Evidence
20. As per reply to legal notice dated 14.07.2020 Ex. CW1/9, Sh. V.K. Ohri, ld. Counsel for the accused admitted that the accused Anoop was proprietor of proprietorship firm AWE World. It is admitted that accused received legal notice through email on 01.07.2020. In para 1 averments made in legal notice are denied. In para 2, accused admitted that he started doing business with the complainant in the year 2018. At that time complainant had taken blank signed cheque (cheque in question) bearing no. 000022 drawn on HDFC Bank towards security and with understanding that the same will not be presented for encashment without consent and knowledge of accused. It was further stated that complainant misused the cheque. In para 3, it is stated that it was mutually agreed that the accused would pay for the goods received from the complainant in parts, as and when they are sold by the accused.
21. The SPA holder/ CW Sh. Nitin Kumar was cross-examined (CE). In CE dated 20.05.2022, he denied the suggestion that the accused never received goods mentioned in invoices Ex. CW1/2 (colly). In CE dated 27.07.2022, he deposed that SPA Ex. CW1/1 was executed at the office of the complainant at Uttam Nagar, Delhi and was forwarded to their advocate and got notarised. He admitted that proper details of notary are not mentioned but voluntarily stated that SPA bears the seal of Notary alongwith Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR Ct. Case No 10040/2020 Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.07 15:55:53 +0530 Page No. 12 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World sign and stamp. He denied the suggestion that he was not the authorised signatory or representative of the complainant.
22. In CE dated 15.09.2022, Original Form A and B were produced and photocopies were marked Ex. CW1/12 (OSR). Original Partnership Deed was produced and photocopy was marked Ex. CW1/1 (OSR). In CE dated 22.12.2022, CW1/SPA deposed that ledgers Ex. CW1/10 (colly) were prepared by complainant and hence do not bear sign/stamp of the accused because after goods were dispatched via verbal purchase orders and invoices were raised. He produced printouts of email conversation of accused with complainant stating that accused admitted his liability, but the same were not supported by application to bring additional documents on record, hence were not taken on record that day. Hence, running ledger account is unpaid and proved. CW1 denied the suggestion that SPA Ex. CW1/1 or ledger Ex. CW1/10 is fabricated. He further denied suggestion tat the SPA was intentionally insufficiently stamped or that he was deposing falsely or that he was not the SPA holder.
23. On 14.07.2023, SPA/CW1 was examined under section 311 Cr.PC. Email correspondence alongwith Certificate under section 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act were marked Ex.CW-1/14 (colly). On 20.07.2024, CW1 was further cross- examined. He stated that the invoice dated 21.12.2018 at internal page no. 36 of Ex. CW1/2(colly) pertains to courier receipt at internal page no. 37 therein.
Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR Date: 2025.08.07 15:55:57 +0530 Page No. 13 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
24. He deposed that goods were supplied to the accused on 20.12.2018 and invoice was prepared for that on the following day due to power cut on 20.12.2018. Hence the complainant established that no goods mentioned in the invoices had remained undispatched to the accused. CW1 stated that goods were received by accused and the ledger account was verified by him. He stated further that the complainant had purchased the returned goods from accused on 10.07.2020, but the accused issued no debit note. Accordingly, complainant proved all the documents relied upon. Thereafter CE under section 311 Cr.PC was closed.
Analysis of Defence Evidence
25. The accused Anoop @ Anoop Kumar Angirish led defence evidence on 08.04.2025. In his examination in chief, accused stated that the complaint is false. He admitted business relationship with complainant and the fact that he signed and issued the cheque in question bearing number 000022 to complainant for receiving goods. He moved on to admit having made several periodic payments to complainant. He also admitted return of some defective goods to complainant worth Rs. 3,50,000/- approx. on 10.07.2020. He stated that complainant 'carried on sending defective goods to me'. Hence, the accused admitted running continuous accounts with the complainant.
26. DW Farooq was dropped at the request of accused.
Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHIV Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.07 Ct. Case No 10040/2020 15:56:02 +0530 Page No. 14 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
27. Even during examination in chief, the accused did not clearly state that he was not liable to make any payment to the complainant at the time of institution of the present case. Accused gave no details of nature, quantity and terms of admitted additional defective goods supplied by the complainant. Accused did not disclose any month/year when defect in the goods was allegedly brought to the notice of complainant, nor it is mentioned as to whom such defect was communicated to. Accused chose not to disclose by what means the defect was intimated to the complainant.
28. Furthermore, accused failed to explain as to what steps were taken by him after the complainant allegedly kept on supplying the defective goods to the accused and raised invoices.
29. In the reply to legal notice, accused had clearly warned the complainant that should the complainant fail in withdrawing the legal demand notice within 15 days (of receipt of the reply), accused would take legal action against the complainant for harassment and misuse of the cheque in question. Accused stated that he made no police complaint against the complainant.
30. Accused did not dispute his signatures on the cheque in question, issuance of the cheque to the complainant, business relationship with the complainant or date of receipt of legal notice from complainant.
Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR Date: 2025.08.07 15:56:06 +0530 Page No. 15 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World
31. Accused failed to show any endorsement/ document/ conversation to show that the cheque in question was a security cheque or that it was to be presented in bank for encashment with the immediate prior consent of the accused.
32. Accused was cross-examined on 20.05.2025. Accused admitted business relationship with complainant and having purchased goods from complainant. He further admitted that he made no endorsement on the cheque in question suggesting that it was a security cheque. He admitted return of goods as well as his name and address at point 'A' on Ex. CW1/14 Invoice dated 10.07.2020. He admitted his email ID was "[email protected]". The same is mentioned on invoice Ex. CW1/14 but the accused denied to have sent email communication dated 31.01.2022, 17.09.2020 and 15.09.2020 admitting his liability to pay to the complainant. Accused could not recollect whether he paid to the complainant Rs. 50,000/- on 26.06.2020, Rs. 25,000/- on 10.07.2020; and Rs. 5,000/- on 15.09.2020, 16.10.2020 and 18.01.2021 each. Accused stated that his HDFC Bank account was not operative and he objected to calling HDFC Bank officials as witnesses.
33. On 28.06.2025, accused was further cross-examined. Accused did not produce his HDFC Bank account for the relevant period. He produced judgment in CS(COMM) 47-2024 marked as Ex. DW1/X already decided and decreed in favor of Digitally signed by Ct. Case No 10040/2020 SHIV SHIV KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.07 Page No. 16 of 19.
15:56:10
+0530
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World the complainant and against the accused based on similar facts. Accused could not answer whether he made any police complaint against complainant herein even after institution of the instant case against him and before passing of the civil decree. Accused admitted having not placed on record any document of communication of defect in goods to the complainant. Accused admitted receipt of legal notice. He admitted having not explained the defects in goods in his reply to legal notice. He stated that his HDFC Bank account had been dormant since Covid-19. He admitted reason of cheque dishonour to be insufficient funds. He stated that he did not furnish any documents of transactions with complainant because his CA had run away with all records, yet accused did not lodge any police complaint against his CA till date. Accused refused to tell the Court as to which bank account is currently linked to his currently active firm. Accused admitted that he is proprietor of the accused firm. Accused voluntarily stated that he issued blank, undated, signed cheque to complainant with the understanding that only amount upto Rs. 2 lacs was to be filled in it and that the complainant was to take prior consent of the accused for presentation of the cheque in bank for encashment. Accused denied the legal liability to pay, email communication and part payments and brought counterfoil of the chequebook Ex. Dw1/1(OSR).
34. Accused alleged forgery and fabrication of ledger Ex. CW1/10. But he did not produce any ledger/GST Returns from Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHIV Ct. Case No 10040/2020 KUMAR Date:
2025.08.07 15:56:14 +0530 Page No. 17 of 19.
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World his side to contradict the ledger exhibited by the complainant. No case of offence of forgery was ever filed by the present accused against the complainant.
35. Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and issuance of the cheque to the complainant. The accused boldly averred that the cheque in question was security cheque, there was upper limit of amount of Rs. 2 lacs in the cheque and that there was requirement of prior consent of accused before presentment of the cheque in bank; without any corroborative documentary evidence and without any other defence witness.
36. Accused failed to explain the description of defect in goods, the date and mode of communication of defect to the complainant and the legal action taken by the accused, if any, after the complainant failed to withdraw the legal notice within stipulated time of 15 days as required by reply to legal notice.
37. Defence of the accused is that of bare denial. CS(COMM) 47/2024 was decreed in favor of present complainant based on similar facts. It is settled law that remedy envisaged under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is independent of alternate remedies and can be availed despite civil remedy.
38. Issuance of cheque and signatures on the cheque in question are admitted. Receipt of legal notice is admitted. Period of limitation is followed. Email ID of the accused is admitted.
Ct. Case No 10040/2020 Digitally signed
by SHIV
SHIV KUMAR
KUMAR Date: Page No. 18 of 19.
2025.08.07
15:56:19 +0530
M/s Devi Karam Associates vs. M/s Awe World Lack of endorsement of 'security cheque in question' is admitted. Proof of communication of defect in goods is not shown. Contradictory ledgers, GST Returns and relevant bank account statement are not produced by accused. Outstanding amount as per ledger Ex. CW1/10 corresponds to the amount mentioned on the cheque in question. Accused was liable to pay the cheque amount.
Conclusion
39. Hence, accused M/s Awe World through its proprietor/partner, Anoop @ Anoop Kumar Angirish is convicted for the offence under section 138 NIA.
40. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
41. Let the copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost.
Pronounced in the open Court on 07.08.2025. Digitally signed by SHIV SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.07 15:56:25 +0530 (Shiv Kumar) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 NI ACT South West District, Dwarka Court New Delhi/07.08.2025 Note: This judgment contains 19 pages and each page is signed by me. SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.08.07 15:56:32 +0530 (Shiv Kumar) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 NI ACT South West District, Dwarka Court New Delhi/07.08.2025 Ct. Case No 10040/2020 Page No. 19 of 19.