Delhi District Court
M/S Den Networks Limited vs M/S Utn Media And Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. ... on 27 January, 2026
DLST020087302018
IN THE COURT OF SH. NITIN SHAH, JMFC-05, N.I. ACT,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CC No. : 3430/2018
U/s : 138 N. I. Act
PS : Hauz Khas
M/s Den Network Ltd. vs. M/s UTN Media & Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. CC No. : 3430
2. Date of institution of the case : 21.03.2018
3. Name of complainant : M/s Den Network Ltd.
236, OIA Phase-3,
New Delhi.
4. Name of accused, parentage
and address : 1) UTN Media &
Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd.
Office at 487/35A, 2nd Floor,
Peeragarhi, New Delhi.
2) Rajneesh Budhiraja,
Director of accused company,
3) Gulshan Kumar
Director of accused company,
4) Mohd. Danish Raza
Director of accused company,
5. Offence complained of : 138 N. I. Act
6. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquittal
8. Date on which order was : 13.01.2026
reserved
9. Date of pronouncement : 27.01.2026
Digitally
signed by
Nitin Nitin
Date:
shah
shah 16:19:19
2026.01.27
+0530
CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 1 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South
DLST020087302018
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The present complaint has been filed by M/s Den Network Ltd. (hereinafter complainant) against M/s UTN Media & Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter accused company), Rajneesh Budhiraja (Accused no. 2), Gulshan Kumar (Accused no. 3) and Mohd. Danish Raja (Accused no. 4) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint case, as per the complainant, may be summarized as hereafter: That complainant company is engaged in the business of communication network (Cable TV Networking) including supply of various programmes and Cable TV signals feed through Trunk Lines for further transmission/communication through its various business affiliates for further distribution. That accused no. 1 company is a broadcaster and accused no. 2 to 4 are directors of the accused company. That accused persons entered into a MOU dt. 22.12.2017 with the complainant company for placement of the channel BNB in the territory as defined in the MOU. That accused no. 1 company had been carrying the channel 'BNB' as per the said MOU and they have never raised any objection regarding the services of the complainant company. That in respect of carrying the channel 'BNB' to the accused company, there are huge amount outstanding against the accused, as per the said MOU. That accused persons promised on different occasions that they would soon clear their complete outstanding. That after repeated requests, accused persons, in discharge of their partial liability towards the complainant had issued a cheque bearing no. 251982 dt. 11.12.2017 for Rs. 9,15,483/- drawn on IndusInd Bank, Model Town Branch, DelhiDigitally signed Nitin by Nitin shah Date:
2026.01.27 CC No. 3430/18 shah 16:19:24 +0530 (Nitin Shah) Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 2 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 was issued in favour of the complainant towards the part payment. That when complainant presented the abovesaid cheque for enashment, same was returned unpaid with remarks "payment stopped by drawer". Thereafter, complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 12.02.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the amount of the aforesaid cheque within the stipulated period but the accused did not make the payment within the statutory period.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
3. The complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon following evidences:-
a) Board Resolution Ex. CW1/A (OSR) b) Cheque in question Ex. CW1/B c) Return memo Ex. CW1/C d) Legal demand notice dt. 12.02.2018 Ex. CW1/D e) Postal receipts Ex. CW1/E colly. f) Tracking reports Ex. CW1/F colly. g) MOU dt. 22.12.2017 Ex. CW1/H
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and notice under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) Digitally Nitin signed by Nitin shah Date:
shah 2026.01.27
16:19:28
+0530
CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 3 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South
DLST020087302018
was served upon accused persons on 01.08.2018 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused persons had taken following defence:
4.1 The accused no. 2 Rajnish Budhiraja took the defence that cheque in question was issued as security at the time of signing of MOU with the complainant. He further deposed that it was a blank signed cheque issued only for security purpose and thereafter proper agreement was to be executed with the complainant and only after the services of complainant were to be availed by them.
He further deposed that agreement was not executed with the complainant, therefore no services of complainant had ever been availed by them.
4.2 The accused no. 3 Gulshan Kumar took the defence that at the time of execution of MOU, complainant asked for 3 security cheques which were given only for the purpose of security. He further deposed that as per MOU, proper agreement was to be executed later on and complainant was required to issue invoices on the basis of which they were supposed to make payment in advance. However, no agreement was executed and the services of the complainant were not as per MOU. He further deposed that complainant presented first cheque and after receiving information, they immediately sent email to the complainant not to present the remaining two cheques and therefore they had stopped the payment of cheque in question. However, despite instructions, complainant presented the cheque in question. He further deposed that they have no liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. He further deposed that they had not received any invoices from the complainant nor they received any intimation from the complainant, if any services were started or ended.
Digitally signed by Nitin Nitin Date:
shah shah 2026.01.27 16:19:32 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah) Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 4 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 4.3 The accused no. 4 Mohd. Danish Raza took the defence that he has no knowledge regarding the cheques in question. He further deposed that he came to know later on regarding the handing over the cheques and MOU that was executed by the company. He further deposed that subsequently, upon receipt of legal notice and on inquiry from the other accused, he came to know that at the time of execution of MOU, complainant asked for 3 security cheques which were given only for the purpose of security. He further deposed that as per MOU, proper agreement was to be executed later on, and the complainant was required to issue invoices on the basis of which they were supposed to make payment in advance.
However, no agreement was executed, and the services of the complainant were not as per MOU. He further deposed that thereafter complainant presented first cheque and after receiving information, they immediately sent email to the complainant not to present the remaining two cheques, therefore they had stopped the payment of cheque in question. However, despite instructions, complainant presented the cheque in question. He further deposed that they have no liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.
5. Thereafter, on oral plea of accused, application u/s 145 (2) of NI Act was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2018 and the accused was granted opportunity to cross examine the complainant as well as his witnesses, if any.
6. The complainant has only examined AR of complainant as CW-1. In the post summoning evidence, the complainant (CW1) has adopted his pre-
Digitally signed Nitin by Nitin shah Date: 2026.01.27 shah 16:19:37 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 5 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 summoning evidence. The AR of complainant was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for accused. CE was closed vide order dated 22.03.2023.
7. Accused persons were, thereafter, examined U/s 281 r/w Sec 313 Criminal Procedure code, 1872 on 17.05.2023 wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to them. The accused persons took defence that they have no liability towards the cheque in question.
8. Accused no. 3 Gulshan Kumar examined himself as DW-1, accused no. 4 Mohd. Danish Raza as DW-2 and accused no. 2 Rajneesh Budhiraja as DW-3, after allowing the application u/s 315 CrPC.
The defence evidence was closed on 09.10.2025 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire evidence led by the parties and the material available on record.
10. Arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT AND DISCUSSION
11. Before delving into discussion over the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides in trial of offence under Section 138 NI Act. In Gimpex Private Limited vs. Digitally signed by Nitin Nitin shah Date:
shah 2026.01.27 16:19:41 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah) Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 6 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 705 (Decided on October 08, 2021) Hon'ble Supreme Court has divided the ingredients forming the basis of the offence un- der Section 138 of the NI Act in the following structure:
1) The drawing of a cheque by person on an account main-
tained by him with the banker for the payment of any amount of money from that account to another person;
2) The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability;
3) Presentation of the cheque to the bank arranged to be paid from that account,
4) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank as unpaid ei- ther because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it ex- ceeds the amount.
5) A notice by the payee or the holder in due course making a demand for the payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank in regard to the return of the cheque; and
6) The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
12. The accused can be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act only if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-
Digitally signedNitin by Nitin shah Date: 2026.01.27 CC No. 3430/18 shah (Nitin Shah) 16:19:45 +0530 Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 7 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018
extensively. Moreover, conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled in addition to above-mentioned ingredients. Hence, unless all the above ingredients are fulfilled in a trial under Section 138 NI Act, accused can- not be held liable.
13. It is pertinent from the pleadings and evidence adduced by the par- ties that there is no dispute qua the proof of first, third and fourth ingredi- ent. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex. CW1/B which the accused had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within period of validity. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo Ex. CW1/C with the remarks 'payment stopped by drawer'. The said reason is duly covered within the scheme of NI Act. Same has not been disputed by the accused. Therefore, re- quirement of first, third and fourth ingredients stand fulfilled in the present mat- ter.
With Respect To fifth and sixth Ingredient:
14. In case of CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed (2007)6 SCC555 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that giving a legal notice to the drawer before filing of complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is a mandatory require- ment. As far as proof of fifth and sixth ingredient is concerned, the complainant sent a legal demand notice to the accused on 12.02.2018 and also filed postal re- ceipts (Ex. CW1/E colly.). In view of the presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Ex.CW1/E and Ex.CW1/F colly. (legal notice, postal receipts Digitally signed Nitin by Nitin shah Date:
2026.01.27 shah 16:19:51 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah) Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 8 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 and tracking reports) alongwith the ratio laid down in the case of "C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Mohd. & Anr (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the fifth and sixth ingredient of the offence stands proved.
RAISING OF PRESUMPTION
15. As per the scheme of NI Act, Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Similarly, another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. This provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability. The collective effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which shows that the presumption provided for in the Act is a 'presumption of law' and makes it imperative for the court to raise such presumptions, once the introductory facts required for the same are proved.
16. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, Kumar Digitally signed by Nitin Nitin shah Date:
shah 2026.01.27
16:19:55
+0530
CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 9 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 Exports vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197.
17. In the present case, the main defence taken by the accused is that, as per the MOU executed between the parties, the complainant was required to run the channel, which was never done. Furthermore, no Local Channel Number (LCN) was ever provided. The cheque in question was given only as a security. Therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt or liability in favour of the complainant.
18. In order to prove said defence, accused No. 3 appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and deposed that he has been a director of the accused company since its inception. He testified that an MOU was executed between the complainant company and the accused company for airing of a television channel in Bihar, Jharkhand, Delhi NCR, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. In terms of the said MOU, the accused company was required to furnish blank cheques as security to the complainant. DW-1 further stated that upon execution of the MOU, there was an understanding between the parties that the channel would be aired by the complainant. However, the complainant neither aired the channel nor provided any Local Channel Number (LCN), and no invoice was ever raised in accordance with the terms of the MOU. Upon realizing that the complainant had failed to air the channel, the accused company issued stop-payment instructions in respect of the cheques. Similar defence has been taken by DW-2 i.e. accused no. 4 and DW-3 i.e accused no. 2.
Digitally signed by Nitin Nitin shah Date:
shah 2026.01.27
16:20:00
+0530
CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 10 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018
19. The said witness was subjected to detailed cross-examination. During his cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the MOU does not specifically record that security cheques were handed over to the complainant company, and that no written communication was made seeking provision of the Local Channel Number (LCN). Except for the aforesaid admissions, nothing further material could be elicited from the cross-examination of the witness. However, DW-1 reiterated that the complainant company never delivered the services promised under the MOU and did not raise any invoice in accordance with the terms thereof.
20. DW-2, during his cross-examination, stated that he was responsible for looking after the technical aspects of the accused company, while the other accused persons were handling the monetary transactions. He categorically stated that the complainant never aired the channel. By way of a voluntary statement, the witness further deposed that whenever a channel is aired, the network provider is required to maintain a logbook. Except for the aforesaid statement, nothing material could be elicited from the cross-examination of the said witness.
21. DW-3, during his cross-examination, upon being shown the MOU, admitted that the term mentioned in the said MOU was from 10.12.2017 to 09.12.2018 and that it contained a stipulation regarding advance payment. However, he clarified that payment was to be made only after the raising of an invoice. With regard to the absence of any written notice to the complainant, the witness stated that upon execution of the MOU, the obligations on the part of the accused company stood completed and it was thereafter incumbent upon the complainant to provide the Local Channel Number (LCN), which was never done, Digitally signed Nitin by Nitin shah Date: 2026.01.27 shah 16:20:04 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah) Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 11 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 and consequently the channel was never aired. The witness further deposed that under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, the complainant was required to maintain a log book recording the channel being aired on a particular LCN. Further, no material fact has emerged from the cross- examination of the said witness.
22. Further, CW-1, the complainant witness, during his cross- examination, stated that he was not certain about the exact period during which the channel was aired. Though he stated that the channel was aired from December 2017 to January 2018, he admitted that no document had been placed on record to demonstrate that invoices were issued to the accused or that the BNB channel was in fact aired. The said witness further admitted that under the arrangement, the complainant company was required to raise an invoice prior to any payment being made by the accused company. Thereafter, CW-1A also stated that invoices had been raised; however, he admitted that the same were not placed on record.
23. Thus, the primary issue for consideration is whether the complainant had in fact aired the channel of the accused company. For this purpose, it becomes necessary to examine the terms of the MOU executed between the parties, exhibited as Ex. CW-1/H (OSR). At Point 'G', the payment mechanism has been set out, wherein it is provided that the broadcaster was to pay a sum of ₹7,91,667/- in equal monthly instalments as advance. It is further stipulated that the complainant shall raise an invoice towards the fees payable to the broadcaster, i.e., the accused company, and the accused was required to make payment of the monthly advance within seven days from the commencement of each month.
Digitally signed Nitin by Nitin shah Date: 2026.01.27 shah 16:20:09 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 12 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018
24. Thus, in terms of Point 'G' of the MOU, the complainant company was required to first raise an invoice, whereafter the broadcaster, i.e., the accused company, would become liable to make payment within seven days from the begin- ning of the relevant month. However, in the present case, no invoice whatsoever has been placed on record. The absence of any such invoice raises a serious doubt re- garding the existence of any legally enforceable liability.
25. Further, as per Point 'L' of the MOU, a long-form agreement was re- quired to be executed within thirty days of the signing of the MOU. However, no such agreement was ever executed between the parties.
26. The Authorized Representative of the complainant, CW-1, during his cross-examination, stated that the complainant company is registered under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act. However, he admitted that he was not aware whether any register was maintained by the complainant company.
27. Here, it is relevant to advert to Section 7 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, which mandates that every cable operator shall main- tain such registers and records for a period of one year after actual transmission, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, containing particulars relating to the operation of the cable television network.
28. The Authorized Representative of the complainant CW-1 stated that the channel of the accused company was aired from December 2017 to January 2018. Perusal of the record shows that the present complaint was filed in March 2018, i.e., within three months of the period during which the complainant claims Digitally signed by Nitin Nitin shah Date:
shah 2026.01.27 16:20:15 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah) +0530 Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 13 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 to have aired the channel. However, no register, log book, or copy thereof has been placed on record to substantiate such assertion. Further, the notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed against the accused persons on 01.08.2018, wherein a clear defence was taken that no services of the complainant were ever availed by the accused. Even thereafter, the complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish that services were provided to the accused company in terms of the MOU. The aforesaid circumstances clearly raise a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the complainant's version that the channel of the ac-
cused company was actually aired.
29. Further, even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the chan- nel of the accused company was aired, as per Point 'G' of the MOU, the monthly payable fee, exclusive of taxes, was ₹7,91,667/-. However, the cheque in question is for an amount of ₹9,15,483/-. The complainant company has not placed on record any statement of account, ledger, or calculation to demonstrate how it arrived at the said figure or how the accused company became liable for the said amount.
30. Hence, in the light of discussion and the evidence on record, the admissions of the complainant's witnesses, the terms of the MOU, the absence of invoices, registers, log books, or any account statements, and the non-furnishing of statutory records under Section 7 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, it is apparent that the case of the complainant has failed to prove legal liability against the accused, Consequently, it can be said that the accused has been able to raise the probable defence. Thereafter, onus is again shifted to the complainant to Digitally signed Nitin by Nitin shah Date: 2026.01.27 shah 16:20:21 +0530 CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah) Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 14 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020087302018 prove the case beyond reasonable doubt which the complainant has failed to do so, thus, the second ingredient to the offence under section 138 of NI Act does not stands proved.
CONCLUSION:
31. In the result of the analysis of the present case, the accused no. 1 M/s UTN Media & Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., Rajneesh Budhiraja (Accused no.
2), Gulshan Kumar (Accused no. 3) and Mohd. Danish Raja (Accused no. 4) are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
32. This judgment contains 15 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
33. Copy of this Judgment be given dasti free of cost as per rules.
34. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, South, Saket forthwith. Digitally Nitin signed by Nitin shah Date:
shah 2026.01.27
16:20:27
+0530
Announced in the open Court (NITIN SHAH)
on 27.01.2026 JMFC-05 (NI ACT) SOUTH/SAKET
NEW DELHI
CC No. 3430/18 (Nitin Shah)
Den Network Ltd. vs. UTN Media & Broadcasting Page no 15 of 15 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South