Delhi District Court
Prime Steel Industries vs Sharma Traders on 15 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHTHA MEHTANI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT-03
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PHC, NEW DELHI
Now working as JMFC (NI ACT), NORTH-EAST,
KARKDARDOOMA COURTS,DELHI
1. Complaint Case : 7338/2022
number
2. Name & address of the : Prime Steel Industries
complainant
Through its Partner Sh. Vikram Singh.
Add : A-17, Naraina Industrial Area
Phase-II, New Delhi-110028.
Tanu Bhardwaj, proprietor of Sharma
3. Name and address :
Traders
of the accused
Add: B-5, G.K. House No. 187A, Main
Road Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, Near
Iskon Temple, New Delhi-110006.
A Offence complained : Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
5. Plea of the guilt : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : Convicted
7. Date of institution : 23.07.2022
8. Date on which : 11.11.2025
reserved for judgment
9. Date of judgment : 15.12.2025
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 1 of 18
Digitally signed
by NISHTHA
MEHTANI
NISHTHA Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15
15:27:05
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely M/s Prime Steel Industries, through its Partner Sh. Vikram Singh, against the accused, namely Smt. Tanu Bhardwaj, Prop. of M/s Sharma Traders, in lieu of cheque bearing no. 125704 dated 22.03.2022 of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn from the Vaish Co-operative Adarsh Bank Ltd., Sant Nagar, East of Kailash Branch New Delhi 110065, (hereinafter referred to as the "cheque in question").
2. Succinctly put, it is the case of the complainant that the complainant is partnership firm dealing in manufacturing in Iron and Steel products from many years. That the accused was purchasing channels from the complainant firm from last 2 years on cash and credit basis. That according to bills raises and the statment of account of the complainant, the accused had a pending liability of Rs. 3,24,423/- and in part discharge of the same, the accused issued the cheque in question towards the complainant.
3. That the complainant presented the cheque in question with its banker for clearance. That the same was returned back dishonoured via return memo dated 11.05.2022, with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
4. That thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 02.06.2022 via speedpost with respect to dishonor of cheque calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice.
5. That the accused refused the service of the notice and the same was also duly served upon him via Whatsapp. That despite the due service of the legal demand notice calling upon the accused to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with respect to dishonour of cheque in question, within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, he failed to pay the amount of the cheque in question. Hence, the complainant has moved this court with the present CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 2 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI NISHTHA Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:27:15 +0530 complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:
6. That in order to prove a prima-facie case, the Complainant led pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit i.e., Ex. CW-1/A1 wherein the Complainant affirmed the facts stated in the present complaint and relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of statement of account of the complainant firm i.e. Ex.CW1/ 1.
2. Original cheque no. 125704 dated 22.03.2022 i.e. Ex.CW1/2.
3.Original cheque returning memo i.e. Ex. CW1/3.
4. Copy of Legal demand notice i.e. Ex.CW1/4.
5. Postal receipt i.e. Ex.CW1/5.
6. Tracking report i.e. Ex.CW1/6.
7. Refused Envelope i.e. Ex.CW1/7.
COGNIZANCE & SUMMONING OF THE ACCUSED:
7. That, after considering the Pre-summoning evidence led by the Complainant and the submissions made by him, the Court took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused vide order dated 01.12.2022. The accused appeared before this court on 28.03.2023. He was admitted to bail upon furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
NOTICE U/S- 251 CR.P.C:
8. That on 06.06.2023 Notice u/s- 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') containing the substance of accusation, for the offence under Section 138 of the Act was served upon the Accused to which he pleaded not guilty and CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 3 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:27:23 +0530 claimed trial. She admitted that the cheque in question bears her signature and denied filling of the other particulars on the cheque in question. In her plea of defence, she stated that she had sent the cheque amount to the complainant through NEFT on 24.03.2022 and had also informed the complainant about the same. She also submitted that the complainant promised to return the cheque in question after the transfer of the amount, however failed to do so. She admitted the receipt of the legal demand notice on Whatsapp and also admitted the address as mentioned on the same to be her correct address.
EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
That after the Notice u/s -251 Cr.P.C containing the substance of accusation was served upon the Accused, one opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant was granted to the Accused considering the defence taken by him upon filing of an application u/s-145(2) NI Act and thereafter, the matter was heard as a summons trial case. The Complainant was examined as CW-1 on 10.03.2025, who adopted his pre- summoning evidence as post-summoning evidence as it is including the documents, Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7 and was cross-examined. He was then discharged on the same day. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the Complainant stood closed. That being the case, the matter was then listed for statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
9. That in order to give an opportunity to the Accused to personally explain all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, statement of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 24.03.2025 without oath wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were put to him. She stated that she had business CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 4 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI NISHTHA Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:27:34 +0530 relations with the complainant and cheque in question was handed over to the complainant firm in lieu of the payment that she had to make as a result of business transaction with the complainant firm. She also stated that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant on 22.03.2022 and on 24.03.2022, she informed the complainant that some time may be granted to her to put the cheque amount in the bank as there were no funds in the bank at that time. She further stated that she deposited Rs. 1 lac in cash in her own account and thereafter made online transfer through NEFT of the same amount into the account of the complainant firm. The accused denied her liability towards the complainant but admitted receipt of the legal demand notice on her e-mail ID and also admitted her address on the legal demand notice to be correct.
10. That afterwards, the matter was scheduled for defence evidence. The Accused herself entered the witness box and got examined as DW-1 (Defence Witness-1) on 16.07.2025. She was then cross-examined and was discharged on the same day.
Thereafter the evidence of accused stood closed and the matter was set for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Oral arguments were made on behalf of both the parties. No written arguments were filed on behalf of any party.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as per the Ledger account maintained by the complainant, the accused had an outstanding liability of Rs. 3,24,423/-towards the complainant and in discharge of her part liability, she had issued the cheque in question. It was further argued that the business dealings and the liability to the tune of the amount as on the cheque in question has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of the trial and since it is the accused who asserts that the repayment was done by her, the burden is upon her to prove this fact. It was further CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 5 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:27:44 +0530 argued that in the absence of any witness to the repayment made by the accused or any other reliable documentary evidence brought forth by the accused, her bald assertion is not sufficient enough to rebut the mandatory presumption that exists in favour of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant concluded by stating that all the requirements of section 138 NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case and she has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus all the ingredients of section 138 of NI act have been duly satisfied and presumption under section 139 of NI Act is drawn in favour of the complainant. She further stated that the accused failed to raise any probable defence and rebut the presumption under section 139 NI Act therefore, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 NI Act.
13. Per Contra, learned counsel for the accused argued that the present complaint is based on false and fabricated facts and the accused does not owe any liability towards the complainant. It was further argued that the amount as reflected on the cheque in question was paid by the accused to the complainant on the very next day when the same was handed over to the complainant . He further argued that the payment was made to the complainant on 24.03.2022 via neft after which the complainant had promised to return the cheque after receiving the cheque amount and the same is also reflected by documents on record. She further argued that since the entire cheque amount was paid to the complainant, the accused did not owe any liability towards the complainant. The counsel for the accused concluded by stating that the accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under section 139 NI act and the accused has raised a probable defence in her favour. Therefore accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 NI Act.
14. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Additionally, I have meticulously reviewed the entire case record.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 6 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:27:54 +0530 LEGAL POSITION:
15. In order to constitute an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the following legal requirements must be satisfied from the averments in the Complaint as well as the evidence of the Complainant1: -
(a) a person must have drawn a cheque, on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
(b) that the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(c) that the cheque has been returned by the drawee bank unpaid, either for the reason that 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;
(d) that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(e) that the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or holder in due course within 15 days of receipt of the said notice.1
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 954, Delivered by Honorable Division Bench of Justice K.T.Thomas & Justice D.P.Mohapatra, Supreme Court of India on 30-03-2011.*modified in consonance with the amendments brought subsequent to the judgement dated 23.02.2000 in the NI Act.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 7 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:28:04 +0530
16. That the legal requirements mentioned hereinabove are cumulative in nature, i.e. only upon fulfilment of all the aforementioned ingredients, the drawer of the cheque is deemed to have committed an offence under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
17. The provision of Sec.138 is further supported by Sec.139 and Sec.118 of the Act. Sec. 139 of the Act provides presumption in favour of the Complainant and mandates that the court shall presume, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Sec.138 for the discharge, wholly or in part of any debt or other liability. Sec.118 of the Act provides presumptions as to negotiable instruments; that the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
18. Elaborating further on this point, the Apex Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa2 summarised the law. The following was laid down in para 25: (SCC p. 433-434) "25. We have noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. 25.2 The presumption under section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the Accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3 To rebut the presumption, it is open for the Accused to rely on evidence led by him or the Accused can also 2 (2019) 5 SCC 418; Delivered by Honorable Division Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan & Justice K.M.Joseph, Supreme Court of India on 09-04-2019.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 8 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:28:11 +0530 rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4 That it is not necessary for the Accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5 It is not necessary for the Accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
19. What emerges from the abovesaid discussion is that the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates on reverse onus of proof theory; once a given set of facts are shown to exist, the presumptions u/s 139 and Sec.118 of the Act mandate the court to draw them. The same is evident by the language used, i.e., "Shall Presume". However, the said presumptions are in the nature of rebuttable presumptions, i.e. it is open for the defence to shift the onus on the Complainant by raising a probable/ plausible defence.
20. In the present case, accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question.
Reference in this regard can also be made to judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898, that once the signatures in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 9 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:28:19 +0530
21. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of considered opinion that a presumption under Section 139 r/w 118(a) NI Act duly be raised against the accused.
22. Since the above said two presumptions have duly been raised against the accused, our next point of determination is that whether the accused is able to rebut the above said presumptions or not. It is now settled law that accused can rebut these presumptions on a scale of standard of preponderance of probabilities, or to rebut these presumptions, it is open for the accused to rely upon the direct evidence led by himself, or in exceptional cases, the accused can also rely on materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Reliance in this regard, can be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hiten P.Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC, wherein it was stated that :
"............Because both sections 138 and 139 require that the Court 'shall presume' the liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amount for which the cheque are drawn,.... It is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption, in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shift the onus on the accused. Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court 'may presume' a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of non-existence of the presumed fact.
In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 10 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI NISHTHA Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15
15:28:27
+0530
of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against who the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. The rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be a dude before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of a 'prudent man'."
23. As regards the rebuttal of mandatory presumptions, it is also settled law that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act cannot be rebutted upon a mere denial but only by leading cogent evidence. Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision cited as K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan and Another; (2001) 8 SCC 458. Further, the presumptions may be rebutted by the accused either by leading direct evidence and in exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant himself i.e. from the averments in his complaint, in the statutory notice and even the evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. The burden of proof is to be discharged by the accused on a scale of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited as M/s Kumar Exports Vs. M/s Sharma Carpets; 2009 AIR (SC) 1518. It is also a settled law that the statements made by the accused in reply to notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. or in his examination under Section 281 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not on oath and hence are not substantive pieces of evidence. At best, they may be an explanation of the incriminating circumstances against the accused but are devoid of any presumption as to their truthfulness. Support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cited as V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena; 172 (2010) DLT 561. Supra
24. In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is now to be CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 11 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:28:35 +0530 examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumptions which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent to shift the onus placed upon the accused back again on the complainant, and if the Court comes to the conclusion that accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour. The fundamental issue to be addressed is whether the Accused has effectively put forward a credible defence to overturn the presumption against him.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS:
25. I shall now proceed to analyse the legal elements involved in this case, evaluating whether the oral and documentary evidence satisfy the legal requirements. To streamline the discussion, it is important to distinguish between contested and admitted issues, thus narrowing the scope of the controversy.
26. Concerning ingredients no. two and three, these are evidently satisfied by examination of the disputed cheque dated 22.03.2022 (Ex. CW-1/2) and its return memo dated 11.05.2022 (Ex.CW-1/3), indicating "Funds Insufficient". The defence has presented no contrary evidence; hence, these ingredients stand established against the Accused.
27. That it is a trite law that in order to maintain a complaint u/s-138 NI Act, serving of legal demand notice to the Accused before filing the case is imperative. As regards the service of legal demand notice, the Complainant has dispatched the same, Ex.CW-1/4 dated 02.06.2022 to the Accused. Original postal receipt Ex. CW-1/5 and tracking report Ex.CW1/6 corroborate this.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 12 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:29:00 +0530
28. That Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, support the presumption of effective service when a document is sent by registered post unless proven otherwise. The Accused admitted the receipt of the legal demand notice of the complainant only through Whatsapp in notice u/s-251 Cr.P.C however, she also admitted her address as mentioned on the same to be correct. The receipt of the legal demand notice through e-mail was also admitted by the accused in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the fourth ingredient stands fulfilled as against the Accused.
29. The fifth ingredient also stands satisfied against the Accused as in the instant case, it is an admitted position that the Accused has failed to pay the amount due under the cheque in question, on the ground that he does not owe any liability towards the Complainant.
30. In view of the above, the only point for determination in the present matter remains is that of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability for which the cheque in question was issued by the Accused, i.e., the first ingredient.
31. At the outset, the alleged liability of the Accused stems from the issuance of the cheque in question, to the Complainant company in discharge of his legal liability i.e., towards the repayment of the goods supplied by the complainant company to the accused. It is pertinent to note that the Accused admitted his signature on the cheque in question and that the same is drawn on his firm's bank account. He denied filling the body of the cheque in question. In a recent judgement titled as Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, SLP Crl. No. 12802 of 2022, the Apex court held as following:
"......37. Recently, this Court has gone to the extent of holding that presumption takes effect even in a situation where the Accused contends that 'a blank cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over by him to the CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 13 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:29:08 +0530 Complainant. [Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar3]. Therefore, mere admission of the drawer's signature, without admitting the execution of the entire contents in the cheque, is now sufficient to trigger the presumption."
32. Applying the ratio of the above-said judgement, the undisputed execution of the cheque in question and the legal principles previously discussed leads to an inference under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the Act. This presumption suggests that the cheque was issued for settling a legally enforceable debt or liability owed to the Complainant. With this presumption raised against the Accused, the onus shifts to him to counteract it by presenting a plausible defence. To this end, the Accused has conducted cross-examination of the Complainant, referred to as CW-1. She also entered the witness box himself as DW-1. The fundamental issue to be addressed is whether the Accused has effectively put forward a credible defence to overturn the presumption against him.
33. For substantiating the complaint, it is crucial that CW-1 (the Complainant) provides consistent testimony regarding the key elements of the transaction with the Accused.
34. It is the case of the complainant that the accused used to purchase channels from the complainant and according to the bills raised and the statement of account of the complainant, the accused had an outstanding liability of Rs.3,24,423/- towards the complainant in part discharge of which the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant. Whereas the accused has taken a defence that her liability was only to the tune of the amount of the cheque in question and the same was paid by her to the complainant via NEFT and hence she does not owe any liability towards the complainant.
35. It is an admitted position that the complainant and the accused were in a buyer seller 3 (2019) 4 SCC 197 CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 14 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:29:16 +0530 relationship. The accused has not disputed the same at any stage of the trial and has also not disputed being the proprietor of the firm on whose account the cheque in question is drawn. The accused during the recording of her statement under section 313Cr.P.C. read with section 281 Cr.P.C., also admitted that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant firm in lieu of the payment that she had to make to the firm as a result of business transactions with it and also did not dispute her liability to the tune of the amount on the cheque in question. The only defence taken by the accused is that the cheque amount was paid to the complainant on 24.03.2022 via an online transfer through NEFT and that the cheque in question has been misused. It is pertinent to note that no evidence in any oral or documentary form has been brought forth by the accused and the defence appears to be a mere bald averment. It is the case of the accused that the amount was paid to the complainant firm by way of online bank transfer through NEFT, however no records of the bank or any account statement has been produced by the accused in her defence to support her version and no such documents were exhibited at the time of her defence evidence. The accused in her cross examination held on 16.07.2025 also mentions that some payments were made by her to the complainant in cash however denied having any receipts of the same.
36. Furthermore, the accused has also taken contradictory stands qua the cheque in question at different stages of the trial. At the time of the framing of the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., the accused denied filling of any of the particulars except her signatures, on the cheque in question. However at the time of recording of her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. read with section 281Cr.P.C. she stated that all the particulars including the name of the payee, the amount both in words and in numbers and the date had been filled by her on the cheque in question. This further strikes at the credibility of the accused and the version attempted to be set up by her.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 15 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:29:24 +0530
37. The accused has also not brought on record any cogent evidence in the form of any steps taken by her to get back the cheque in question from the complainant, or any complaint made on her behalf to the bank or public authorities regarding the alleged misuse of his cheque. Non issuance of stop payment instructions to the bank also causes doubt to lurk around the story of the accused. She thus failed to adduce any credible evidence to show that she indeed did everything within her power and control as a reasonable and prudent person would, to ensure that the cheque tendered by her was not misused. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V. S. Yadav versus Reena (2010) 172 DLT 561.
38. In the absence of any cogent evidence, to show that the amount was paid by the accused, and that there was no legal enforceable debt or liability of the accused at the time of the presentation of the cheque, no reliance can be put on the statement of the accused. Hence it can be said let mere allegations of the accused are insufficient in the absence of concrete evidence to support his claims and significantly weaken his line of defence. Thus the defence that there was no legally enforceable debt /liability of the accused towards the complainant is hereby rejected.
39. Accused has not been able to prove for the reasons discussed above that she did not owe the liability as on the cheque in question on the day when the same was presented. Mere denial of the case of the Complainant with oral averments, supported by no documents or evidence, leave alone, cogent one is not going to assume any evidentiary value and averments in notice of accusation and in his examination under Sec-313 Cr.P.C read with Sec-281 Cr.P.C would not assume the character of defence evidence4 as mere denial is not sufficient.
40. In view of the above discussion, the evidence presented on behalf of the Complainant gains credibility and instils confidence in the Court regarding the material aspects of the Complaint. The narrative of the Complainant remains consistent and coherent 4 V.S Yadav v. Reena, CRL. A. No. 1136 Of 2010.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 16 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:29:32 +0530 supported by documentary evidence in stark contrast to the version provided by the Accused.
41. The Accused's admission of her signature on the cheque is pivotal, and when combined with the presumption raised under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, all the necessary elements of Section 138 of the same Act have been adequately established by the case of the Complainant. The defence of the accused was primarily based on the assertion that the liability as on the cheque in question did not exist as on the date when the cheque in question was presented, arguing that same was already paid. However, the Accused has failed to meet the burden of proof, failing to provide convincing evidence that tilts the balance of probabilities in her favour. Consequently, the presumption raised against the Accused remains unchallenged and stands firm.
42. The culmination of the above analysis leads to the conclusion that all the essential elements required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are satisfactorily met with respect to the Accused. The case of the Complainant stands on a firm foundation, while the defence of the Accused is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks persuasive evidence, failing to create any reasonable doubt in the version put forth by the Complainant. The evidence led by the Complainant emerges as more credible and consistent, leading to the conclusion that all the legal requirements are met, and the defence of the Accused lacks substantiation.
FINAL ORDER
43. In view of the aforesaid, accused Tanu Bhardwaj, proprietor of Sharma Traders is held guilty and is convicted of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
44. This judgment contains 18 signed pages.
45. Announced in open court on 15.12.2025 in the presence of the Accused.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 17 of 18 Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2025.12.15 15:29:39 +0530
46. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost as per rules.
47. Convict be now heard on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANINISHTHA Date:
MEHTANI 2025.12.15 15:29:49 +0530 Announced in open (Nishtha Mehtani) Court on 15.12.2025 JMFC(NI Act)/North-East, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 15.12.2025 This judgment contains 18 signed pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
CC No.7338/2022 Prime Steel Industries Vs. Sharma Traders 18 of 18