Delhi District Court
Veena Bindal vs Puneet Home Appliances on 26 June, 2025
The present case had been reserved for judgment by the undersigned while the
undersigned was officiating as JMFC, NI Act-02, Central District, THC, Delhi
and file has been brought to the present Court i.e. JMFC, Mahila Court-02,
North-West District, Rohini Court, Delhi pursuant to transfer of undersigned.
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF (CONVICTION/DISMISSAL/REVERSAL
OF ACQUITTAL/DISMISSAL OF BAIL APPLICATION)
______________________________________________________
COVERSHEET TO THE COPY OF JUDGMENT
The convict has been informed that the convict may avail free legal aid facilities
for pursuing higher remedies, for which they may contact for seeking
appropriate guidance:
Central Delhi Legal Services Authority
Address of the Authority: Room No. 287, Second Floor, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi - 110054
Phone Number: +91 9667992791, +91 1123933231
E-mail: [email protected].
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.06.26
15:17:39 +0530
(Signature of Presiding Officer)
Date: - 26.06.2025
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GOEL, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST
CLASS) MAHILA COURT- 02, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURT, DELHI.
CC No. 1291/2019
CNR No. DLCT020029092019
VEENA BINDAL Vs. PUNEET HOME APPLIANCES
U/s 138 N. I. Act
PS CIVIL LINES
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case 1291/2019
2. Date of institution of the case 25.01.2019
3. Name of the Complainant Veena Bindal D/o Late Sh. S.P. Bindal,
R/o E-99, Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085.
4. Name of Accused, parentage 1. M/s Puneet Home Appliances, At
and address A-21, Ambey Garden, Libaspur,
Delhi-110042 (through its proprietor Sh.
Puneet Madan).
2. Puneet Madan S/o Sh. Ramesh Madan,
(Proprietor/Authorised Signatory of M/s
Puneet Home Appliances) B-194,
Prashant Vihar, Delhi- 110085.
5. Offence complained of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
6. Plea of Accused Accused Puneet Madan pleaded not
guilty.
7. Final Order Accused Puneet Madan stands convicted.
8. Date of pronouncement 26.06.2025
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
Date: 2025.06.26
GOEL 15:17:48 +0530
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 2 of 19
1. Factual Matrix: The brief facts as alleged by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant is a retired lady from Govt. Service. Accused no. 2 is running his business of assembling of 'Gas Chulha' in the name and style of M/s Puneet Home Appliances i.e. accused no. 1 in the capacity of proprietor. In the month of January, 2018, accused no. 2 was in a dire need of Rs. 5,00,000/- for running the business of accused no. 1 and for the same accused no. 2 approached the complainant through her brother namely Sh. Sanjay Bindal being a family friend and requested for a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- and keeping in view his friendly relation with her brother the complainant advanced the said loan to the accused persons through two cheques in the name of accused no. 1 from her bank accounts maintained in the State Bank of India having its branch at Old Secretariat, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi from SBI cheque bearing no. 97103 amount Rs. 2,00,000/- and amount Rs. 3,00,000/ through cheque bearing No. 2789 of Bank of India for a period of six months and both the said cheques were duly encashed by accused no. 2 in the account of accused no. 1 on 03.02.2018. After expiry of the agreed period of six months, complainant requested accused no. 2 to return the said friendly loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, accused no. 2 showed his inability to pay back the same and requested the complainant to extend a further period of two months to return the same. After expiry of extended period of two months the complainant again requested accused no. 2 to pay back the said loan amount and finally in the month of October 2018, accused no. 2, issued two post-dated cheques from the account of accused no. 1 duly signed by the accused no. 2 in the capacity of authorised signatory of accused no. 1. The details of said two cheques are cheque bearing no. 106471 dated 01.11.2018 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:18:02 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 3 of 19 another cheque bearing no. 106472 dated 01.12.2018 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- both drawn on Punjab National Bank having its branches at Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085. As per the instructions of accused, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment in her bank namely SBI having its branch at Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Delhi on 03.12.2018. But the same returned dishonored vide return memo dated 05.12.2018 with remarks "Funds Insufficient". On receiving the said information from her bank, complainant sent legal notice dated 17.12.2018 through speed post and courier to the accused through her advocate and the envelope (sent at A-21, Ambey Garden, Libaspur, Delhi) returned back with remarks 'refused'. Notice sent at B-194, Prashant Vihar, Delhi- 110085 was not returned back and as per tracking report service of legal demand notice was not clearly mentioned. Hence, the present complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 was filed by the complainant. The complainant has averred that the present complaint is within the period of limitation and falls within the territorial limits of this Court's jurisdiction; thus, being tenable at law.
2. Pre-summoning Evidence: To prove a prima-facie case, the complainant led pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A on 04.02.2019 wherein the complainant has affirmed the facts stated in the instant complaint. To prove the case, the complainant has relied upon the following documents:
S. Description of document Exhibit No.
No.
1 Copy of bank passbook of complainant Ex. CW1/1
2 Copy of bank passbook of complainant Ex. CW1/2
3 Original cheque bearing no. 106471 dated Ex. CW1/3
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 4 of 19
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
Date: 2025.06.26
GOEL 15:18:14 +0530
01.11.2018 for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on
Punjab National Bank, Prashant Vihar Branch, New Delhi.
4 Original cheque bearing no. 106472 dated Ex. CW1/4 01.12.2018 for sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Prashant Vihar Branch, New Delhi.
5 Original return memo dated 05.12.2018 Ex. CW1/5 6 Original return memo dated 05.12.2018 Ex. CW1/6 7 Legal notice dated 17.12.2018 Ex. CW1/7 8 02 Original Postal receipts both dated 20.12.2018 Ex. CW1/8 9 02 Original Courier receipts both dated 20.12.2018 Ex. CW1/9 10 Speed Post envelope Ex. CW1/10 11 Tracking report Mark A
3. Summoning of the Accused: On finding of a prima-facie case against the accused, accused was summoned on 04.02.2019. Accused appeared physically on 29.11.2019.
4. Framing of notice & plea of defence: Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 29.11.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The plea of defence of the accused was recorded where the accused had stated that "I admit my signature on cheque in question and I did not fill the rest particulars of the cheque in question. I did not receive any legal notice. My father knows the brother of complainant. My father has taken a loan of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant which I have repaid through installments. I have issued the cheque in question as security. I do not have any liability towards the cheque in question. My cheque has NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 GOEL 15:18:23 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 5 of 19 been misused. My defence under section 145(2) NI Act shall be read as my defence under Section 251 Cr.P.C."
5. Admission denial u/s 294 CrPC: Accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. He has admitted the return memo. He has not admitted receipt of legal demand notice.
6. Ld. Counsel for accused was directed to file application u/s 145 (2) NI Act on 29.11.2019. Same was filed on 09.02.2021 and allowed vide order of even date. Matter was put up for CE.
7. Evidence of the Complainant: On 04.04.2022, Veena Bindal (CW1) was examined in chief, cross examined and discharged. Sanjay Bindal (CW2) was examined in chief and partly cross examined. Ld. Counsel for complainant filed an application for substitution of Sanjay Bindal (CW2) as legal representative of Veena Bindal (Complainant) as she passed away. Reply to the said application was filed on 31.03.2023. The said application was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2023. Sanjay Bindal (CW2) was further cross examined and discharged on 28.11.2023. CE was closed vide order of even date. Matter was put up for recording statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC.
8. Statement of the Accused: Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C. on 02.02.2024 wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were put to him and he was asked to explain the same. He stated that "I am innocent. I admit my signature on cheque in question and I did not fill the rest particulars of the cheque in question. I did not receive any legal notice. My father knows the brother of complainant. My father has taken a loan of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant which I have repaid through installments. I have issued the cheque in question as security. I do not NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:18:34 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 6 of 19 have any liability towards the cheque in question. My cheque has been misused. I do not wish to say anything else. I have sufficient knowledge of the accusation against me."
9. Defence Evidence: Matter was put up for DE. Puneet Madan (Accused/DW1) was examined in chief and cross examined. He was discharged on 06.12.2024. Ramesh Madan (DW2) was examined in chief and cross examined. He was discharged on 27.09.2024. Time was sought for filing application for calling handwriting expert as defence witness. This application was never filed despite opportunity. Then, application u/s 311 CrPC was filed for summoning Hari Kishan @ Hari Kataria as a defence witness. This application was allowed as the said witness was already cited as a defence witness in the list of witnesses. However, steps were not taken by accused to summon the said witness despite opportunity and therefore, right to DE was closed vide order dated 07.04.2025. Matter was put up for final arguments.
10. Ld. counsel for the accused filed an application u/s 311 CrPC/348 BNSS 2023 r/w 165 Indian Evidence Act/168 BSA 2023 for recalling Sanjay Bindal (CW2) on 14.05.2025 and the same was dismissed vide order of even date. Matter was again put up for final arguments.
11. Ld. Counsel for complainant has not placed reliance upon any judgment.
12. Ld. Counsel for accused has placed reliance upon Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Others, (2020) 7 SCC 1; State of Karnataka Vs. T. Naseer, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1447, Sudhir Engineering Company Vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 (34) DRJ and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MGR Enterprises and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8877.
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
Date: 2025.06.26
GOEL 15:18:43 +0530
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 7 of 19
13. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as the accused and gone through the record and the judgments.
14. Drawer of the cheque is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only when all ingredients of the section are duly proved.
15. The first ingredient of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is that a person has drawn a cheque, on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability.
16. Section 138 NI Act is supported by presumptions u/s 118 and 139 NI Act.
U/s 118 NI Act, unless the contrary was proved, it is to be presumed that the Negotiable Instrument (including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. The initial presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable in nature and includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Court will necessarily presume that the cheque had been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly, when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the complainant proves that cheque was issued/executed in his favour by the drawer. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause and it favours the complainant. The accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof to rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act. The standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities' meaning thereby that if accused is able to raise a probable defence creating doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:18:52 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 8 of 19 rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. (Reliance is placed on K.N. Beena V. Maniyappan, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2895; Rangappa V. Mohan, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898; M/s Kalamani Tex V. P. Balasubramanian, AIR Online 2021 SC 82; and Rajesh Jain V. Ajay Singh, [2023] 13 S.C.R.
788).
17. It is pertinent to note that the accused in notice framed u/s 251 CrPC has admitted that cheque in question bears his signature. Further, the cheque has been drawn on the account of the accused. This leads to drawing of an inference u/s 139 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 read with s.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt or other liability against accused. The presumption now having been raised against the accused, it falls upon him to rebut it. Accused has got cross examined Veena Bindal (CW1) and Sanjay Bindal (CW2) and has got examined himself as DW1 and Ramesh Madan as DW2 to rebut the presumption raised against him.
18. There are several discrepancies in the version of accused as stated in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act, notice u/s 251 CrPC, statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC and deposition of accused u/s 315 CrPC which shall be discussed at length in the paras that will follow.
19. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that application u/s 145 (2) NI Act filed by accused has to be proved by the complainant and mere filing by accused does not prove the contents of the application. The argument of Ld. Counsel for accused is being dealt with right at the outset. On 29.11.2019, notice u/s 251 CrPC was framed against accused when he was present alongwith his counsel. Accused stated in notice u/s 251 CrPC NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:19:00 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 9 of 19 that his defence under section 145(2) NI Act be read as his defence under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he was directed to file application u/s 145 (2) NI Act. The said application does not get filed on two dates thereafter. The said application was filed on 09.02.2021 by Sh. Satish Chandra Pathak, Ld. Counsel for accused who was present that day and accused remained absent. The application has been signed by accused and Sh. Milan Kumar Verma, the then Ld. Counsel for accused holding vakalatnama. The said application is also supported by affidavit dated 06.02.2021 signed by accused himself who has stated that the contents of the application have been drafted by his counsel under his instructions and contents of the application have been read over and explained to the accused and they are true and correct as per the accused. This application was allowed vide order dated 09.02.2021. From 09.02.2021 till date, no objection has been raised on the said application from the side of the accused. It is astonishing that such kind of an argument has been presented by Ld. Counsel for accused. The application u/s 145(2) NI Act is filed by accused disclosing specific points as to on the basis of which he wishes to cross examine the complainant. By arguing that complainant needs to prove application u/s 145 (2) NI Act filed by accused, Ld. Counsel for accused is asking the complainant to prove the defence raised by the accused. The argument raised by Ld. Counsel for accused stands rejected and application u/s 145 (2) NI Act shall be read as part of evidence in decision of this case.
20. Now the undersigned shall be dealing with the issues in the present case alongwith the discrepancies in the defence raised by accused.
Acquaintance between complainant and accused NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 GOEL 15:19:25 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 10 of 19
21. Veena Bindal (CW1, complainant from here on) and Sanjay Bindal (Brother of complainant/Substituted LR/CW2 from here on) both have stated that Puneet Madan (DW1/accused from here on) was a family friend to them since 2014 as accused and his father were known to CW2 and complainant was approached for a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in January, 2018 through CW2.
22. The first discrepancy can be seen in the way how accused has described his acquaintance with the complainant.
23. In application u/s 145 (2) NI Act, accused has stated that he was taken to complainant through CW2 by friend of accused namely Hari Kataria as accused needed Rs. 5,00,000/- in November, 2017.
24. It is pertinent to note here that Complainant has stated that she does not know any Hari Kataria and Hari Kataria was never produced as a witness by the accused despite opportunity.
25. A glance at defence in notice u/s 251 CrPC/statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC/ examination in chief u/s 315 CrPC would show that Ramesh Madan (Father of accused/DW2 from here on) already knew CW2. Infact, DW2 also reiterated that he knows CW2 from past many years as they go to Balaji Mandir, Prashant Vihar. It is strange that accused needed the services of one Mr. Hari Kataria to approach the complainant when his father/DW2 already knew the brother of the complainant/CW2. The bizarreness does not end here. Accused has stated in examination in chief u/s 315 CrPC that he does not know complainant at all and he knew CW2 due to association of CW2 with DW2.
26. It is clear that accused has tried to create some confusion as to whether or not he knew the complainant and has got entangled in his own mess.
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
Date: 2025.06.26
GOEL 15:19:37 +0530
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 11 of 19
Now, the undersigned shall be moving on to another discrepancy built by the accused.
Who has taken the loan, what is the amount of loan and whether the loan has been repaid
27. Complainant and CW2 have stated that interest free friendly loan of Rs.
5,00,000/- was advanced by complainant to accused in January 2018 through cheque in the name of M/s Puneet Home Appliances bearing no. 97103 for Rs. 2,00,000/- from bank account of complainant maintained in the State Bank of India having its branch at Old Secretariat, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and cheque in the name of M/s Puneet Home Appliances bearing no. 2789 for Rs. 3,00,000/- from bank account of complainant maintained in Bank of India, Prashant Vihar. It has been further stated that both the cheques were duly encashed by the accused in the account of M/s Puneet Home Appliances on 03.02.2018. It has been further stated that loan was given for a period of six months and after expiry of six months, complainant requested accused to return the loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to which accused showed his inability and requested the complainant to extend the time of making payment by 02 months. It has been further stated that after expiry of extended period of two months complainant again requested accused to pay back the said loan amount but the loan was not returned. It has been further stated that 02 cheques in question were issued as post-dated cheques in October 2018 to repay the loan in question.
28. Here comes the second discrepancy.
29. As per defence in notice u/s 251 CrPC/statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC/examination in chief u/s 315 CrPC of accused, loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been taken by DW2 and not by accused but has been NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:19:46 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 12 of 19 repaid by accused in installments and blank signed security cheques in question were issued by accused which have been misused by complainant.
30. DW2 sang a different tune and stated that accused has taken Rs.
5,00,000/- from CW2.
31. Icing on the cake is the version in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act as per which complainant took too much time to arrange Rs. 5,00,000/- and meanwhile accused was able to arrange Rs. 2,00,000/- on his own. It has been further stated in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act that complainant went on to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- in the account of the accused even though accused needed only Rs. 3,00,000/-. It has been further stated in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act that since Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited by complainant as surplus and against the wishes of the accused, he withdrew Rs. 2,00,000/- and returned it to CW2 in cash on 05.02.2018. It has been further stated in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act that accused repaid the remaining loan amount in EMIs of Rs. 25,000/- from March 2018 till December 2018 and thus, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by accused to complainant through CW2 in presence of Hari Kataria. It has been further stated in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act that CW2 used to make entry of each and every EMI in his personal pocket diary against proper signature of the accused and Hari Kataria. It has been further stated in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act that after adjusting the EMI of Rs. 25,000/- paid upto December 2018, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was left outstanding.
32. Accused has stated in examination in chief u/s 315 CrPC and DW2 in his evidence have stated that from March 2018 to December, 2018, accused had paid Rs. 25,000/- per month to CW2 and after December 2018, NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:19:56 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 13 of 19 accused asked CW2 to take back Rs. 50,000/- with interest but CW2 did not respond to request of accused.
33. There are contradictions even in the suggestions given to complainant and CW2.
34. On one hand, suggestions have been given to the effect that accused has returned Rs. 3,00,000/- in monthly installments of Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- to CW2 who was, apparently, also charging interest @ 5% per month, on the other hand, suggestions have been given that loan amount was returned by DW2 to CW2.
35. As per suggestions given to complainant, one promissory note was also signed/executed by accused and by Hari Kataria which was denied by the complainant. This promissory note was never produced by the accused.
36. It is clear that accused has admitted the factum of having received Rs.
5,00,000/- in his account by way of banking transaction from the account of the complainant.
37. Accused has not presented any evidence that he had returned the unwanted amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to CW2 or complainant in cash. It is unclear why accused allegedly chose to return the unwanted amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash by withdrawing from his bank account when he could have simply transferred the amount back to the complainant.
38. Accused has not produced any evidence to show that he had returned Rs.
25,000/- per month to CW2 or complainant.
39. At the same time it is unbelievable that complainant who, on one hand, was taking time to arrange funds for accused would, on the other hand, deposit surplus amount in the account of the accused against the wishes of the accused.
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
Date: 2025.06.26
GOEL 15:20:03 +0530
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 14 of 19
40. Complainant has placed reliance upon photocopy of her passbook showing the aforesaid bank transactions (Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/2).
41. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that photocopies of these passbooks cannot be read in evidence as they are not supported by certificate u/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and has relied upon various judgments Arjun (supra), T. Naseer (supra), Sudhir (supra) and Samsung (supra).
42. Ex. CW1/1 is not a system generated passbook, therefore, no certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is required as it is the photocopy of the original passbook and no objection as to mode of proof was taken qua this passbook photocopy on behalf of accused. Therefore, Ex. CW1/1 stands proved in favour of the complainant.
43. It is stated on Ex. CW1/2 that it is a system generated passbook and does not require any initials. Complainant or CW2 were never asked to produce certificate u/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua this passbook throughout the trial. Even if argument of Ld. Counsel for accused is accepted that Ex. CW1/2 cannot be read in evidence for want of certificate u/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, still it will not be able to cast any shadow upon the case of the complainant. The discrepancies in the case of the accused are too many to account for.
44. Suggestion has been given to CW2 that SPA (Ex. CW2/1) is forged and fabricated which was denied by him. CW2 has been substituted as Legal Representative (LR) vide detailed order dated 18.08.2023. No evidence has been produced by accused to show that SPA (Ex. CW2/1) is forged and fabricated and nothing has been brought on record by accused to show that order dated 18.08.2023 has been set aside. Therefore, the contention that SPA (Ex. CW2/1) is forged and fabricated stands rejected.
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.06.26
15:20:12 +0530
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 15 of 19
45. Suggestion was also given to complainant to the effect that she did not maintain sufficient amount to advance the loan amount during the period from November 2017 till 21.01.2018 which was denied by her. The contention that complainant does not have financial capability to lend the loan in question is baseless as it has already been proved that accused had admitted that originally Rs. 5,00,000/- were transferred by complainant in his account.
46. Thus, accused has not been able to dislodge the presumption of legally enforceable debt under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act in favour of the complainant.
47. Complainant has been able to prove that the cheques in question were issued by the accused in discharge of a legally recoverable debt/liability owed to him and therefore, ingredient no. 1 stands fulfilled as against the accused.
48. Discussion on remaining ingredients of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 are in the paras that follow.
49. Cheques in question 106471 dated 01.11.2018 and cheque in question 106472 dated 01.12.2018 have been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn.
50. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that return memos dated 05.12.2018 cannot be read in evidence as the same have not been filed with certificate u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same are not signed or stamped.
51. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Guneet Bhasin v.
State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 4100 of 2022, decided on 14.11.2022 that "9. The cheque return memo is a memo informing the payee's banker and the payee about the dishonour of a cheque. When the cheque is NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:20:21 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 16 of 19 dishonoured, the drawee bank immediately issues a cheque return memo to the payee's banker mentioning the reason for non-payment. The purpose of the cheque return memo is to give the information of the holder of the cheque that his cheque on presentation could not be encashed due to the variety of reasons as mentioned in the cheque return memo. As per the section 146 of the NI act, the cheque return memo on presentation presumed the fact of dishonour of the cheque unless and until such fact is disapproved. Neither section 138 nor the section 146 of the NI act has prescribed any particular form of cheque return memo. The section 138 of the NI Act does not mandate any particular form of cheque return memo which is nothing but a mere information given by the Banker of the due holder of a cheque that the cheque has been returned as unpaid. If the cheque return memo is not bearing any official stamp of the bank, it does not render the cheque return memo as invalid or illegal. The cheque return memo is not a document which is not required to be covered under section 4 of the Bankers Book (Evidence) Act, 1891. If there is any infirmity in the cheque return memo, it does not render entire trial under section 138 of the NI Act as nullity."
52. In light of the above judgment, it shall be presumed 1 that the said cheques have been dishonored as complainant has produced bank's slip/memos both dated 05.12.2018 denoting that the cheques have been dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" and no evidence has been led to disprove the said fact. Infact, accused has admitted the return memos u/s 294 CrPC. Contention of Ld. Counsel for accused stands rejected.
53. Payee has made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice dated 17.12.2018 in writing by way of speed post and 1 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
GOEL Date: 2025.06.26
15:20:29 +0530
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 17 of 19
courier (shown by original speed post receipt dated 20.12.2018 qua ED190804125IN and accompanying returned envelope and original speed post receipt dated 20.12.2018 qua ED190804125IN and accompanying tracking report and 02 original courier receipts both dated 20.12.2018) to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
54. Accused has stated in notice u/s 251 CrPC/statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC/examination in chief u/s 315 CrPC that he did not receive any legal notice. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no tracking report has been filed qua speed post consignment number ED190804125IN as well as qua the courier receipts and the tracking report filed qua speed post consignment number ED190804117IN is incomplete as "item delivered" has not been mentioned upon it.
55. In application u/s 145 (2) NI Act, accused has stated that on/about 21.12.2018, accused received notice dated 17.12.2018 and accused alongwith Hari Kataria even confronted CW2 about it.
56. No evidence has been led from the side of the accused to rebut the factum of service except baldly contradicting his own version mentioned in application u/s 145 (2) NI Act as to receipt of legal demand notice. Contention of Ld. Counsel for accused stands rejected.
57. Drawer of the cheque has failed to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of receipt of the said notice.
58. Thus, second, third, fourth and fifth ingredients of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 stand proved against the accused.
59. As all the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act stand cumulatively satisfied against the accused, therefore, accused Puneet Madan is held guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.26 15:20:40 +0530 CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 18 of 19 and is hereby convicted for the same. Let accused be heard on the point of sentence separately.
60. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26.06.2025.
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA GOEL
Date: 2025.06.26
GOEL 15:20:47 +0530
(NEHA GOEL)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(MAHILA COURT)-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI
CC No. 1291/2019 Veena Bindal Vs. Puneet Home Appliances Page 19 of 19