Delhi District Court
Anil vs Satpal Singh on 23 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
JM FC (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-07, SOUTH-WEST
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC NI ACT NO: 25919/2021
CNR / Case No. DLSW020526022021
ANIL
S/O. SH. MOHAR SINGH R/O 57,
BEECH WALI PATII,
VILLAGE PAPRAWAT,
NEW DELHI-110043 .........Complainant
Versus
SATPAL SINGH
S /O SH. SHRI CHAND
R/O. 157, BEECH WALI PATII,
PAPRAWAT VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI-110043 .......Accused
Offence Complained of or proved : Under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of filing : 28.10.2021
Date of Institution : 29.10.2021
Date of reserving judgment/order : 01.10.2024
Final Order/Judgment : Convicted
Date of pronouncement : 23.10.2024
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Page 1 of 20
Digitally signed
by RADHA
RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
14:42:18 +0530
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
A BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3-4
B APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED, NOTICE & 4-5
ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
C COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE 5-6
D STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 6-7
E DEFENCE EVIDENCE 7
F FINAL ARGUMENTS 7-8
G DISCUSSION ON PRINCIPLES OF LAW 8-14
H REASONS FOR THE DECISION 14-19
I DECISION 19-20
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this Judgment, I will dispose of the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") filed by the complainant against accused on account of dishonour of a cheque bearing number No.382469 dated 27.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Paprawat, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the cheque in question).
Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
14:42:24 +0530
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Page 2 of 20
A. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. That accused is real uncle (Chacha) of complainant and maintaining friendly /family relations with complainant since last so many years and accused approached complainant for temporarily financial assistance of Rs.2,00,000/- in the last week of November 2018. That complainant paid Rs.2,00,000 /- (Rs.1,50,000/- through cheque and Rs.50,000/- through cash) on 01.12.2018, as a friendly loan to accused for his emergent need on full trust and faith upon accused. The accused had promised to repay the aforesaid amount within two years. The complainant in the last week of July 2021 made the demand for repayment of aforesaid amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for which accused delivered a cheque bearing No.382469 dated 27.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lac Only), drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Paprawat, New Delhi as a legal liability of the total loan amount. The complainant accepted the aforesaid cheque on the full assurance and promise of the accused that the accused always have sufficient funds in his account and the aforesaid cheque would certainly be honoured on its presentation for encashment to the banker. The complainant thereafter, presented the said cheque with his banker i.e. Punjab National Bank, Branch Paprawat, New Delhi, for encashment/ clearing but to the utter shock and dismay of complainant the said cheque returned dishonoured due to the reason "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" from accused banker vide return memo dated 27.08.2021. The complainant immediately informed the accused about the dishonour of the said cheque and accused requested to complainant that accused is sending cash in respect of the dishonoured cheque but the accused did not send any cash CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Digitally signed Page 3 of 20 by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:42:29 +0530 till today. The complainant then contacted the accused on phone as well as personally visited and requested the accused for making the payment in respect of the dishonoured cheque but the accused tried to avoid making the payment on one pretext or another. The complainant realized that the accused has cheated him by appropriating and committing breach of trust.
3. A legal demand notice, dated 20.09.2021, was thereafter served by complainant upon the accused. However, the accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount in question to the complainant, despite service of legal notice of demand. Thus, he has committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.
B. APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED, NOTICE AND ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Upon receipt of the complaint, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned vide order dated 27.11.2021. Accused appeared in response to summons and was admitted to bail. Thereafter, a separate notice explaining accusations to the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was served upon him in terms of Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) on 02.04.2022. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the following plea of defence was taken by the accused at the time of framing of notice: -
Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
Page 4 of 20
14:42:33 +0530
"I never issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was misplaced. I do not know how the cheque in question came in possession of the complainant. I had lodged a complaint in my bank on 10.03.2021 regarding loss of the said cheque".
5. Statement of the accused regarding admission/denial of documents was recorded under Section 294 CrPC on 24.09.2022. Accused has admitted that the cheque in question is from his bank account. The signature on the cheque was also admitted by the accused.
6. Thereafter, accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant after his application u/s 145(2) of NI Act was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2022.
C. COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
7. During the trial, the complainant has led the following oral and documentary evidence: -
ORAL EVIDENCE CW-1 Complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. CW-1/A. CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Digitally signed by RADHA Page 5 of 20 RADHA KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:42:39 +0530 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. CW-1/1 Cheque in question bearing no.382469 dated 27.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex. CW-1/2 Return memo dated 27.08.2021 Ex. CW-1/3 Legal Demand Notice dated 20.09.2021 Ex. CW-1/4 Postal receipt of legal demand notice Ex.CW-1/5 Delivery report along with Certificate U/s 65B of Indian (Colly) Evidence Act
CW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. CE was closed vide order dated 13.10.2023.
D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
8. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath u/s 313 CrPC to allow him to personally explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. In his statement u/s 313 CrPC, the accused denied all the allegations against him. Further, the following plea of CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Digitally signed by RADHA Page 6 of 20 RADHA KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:42:43 +0530 defence was taken by the accused at the time of recording statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC: -
"I had not taken any financial assistance of Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant. I had misplaced my cheque book in 2021 and I had gone to the PS - Chawla, Najafgarh to file missing complaint. However, the concerned police staff told me to go to my bank and issue "Stop Payment" directions to my bank. Thereafter, I went to my bank I had issued "Stop Payment" directions to my bank. I did not issue cheque in question Ex.CW1/1 in favour of the complainant".
E. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
9. The accused examined Mr. Sukhveer Singh, Designation - Probationary Officer, Punjab National Bank, Paprawat, New Delhi - 110043 as DW-1 which was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
F. FINAL ARGUMENTS
10.Final arguments on behalf of the parties were thereafter heard on 01.10.2024.Digitally signed by RADHA
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 RADHA
KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA Page 7 of 20
Date: 2024.10.23
14:42:47 +0530
11.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that the complainant has been able to prove all the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He submitted that the accused has admitted that the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/1 is from his bank account. In view of his admission, according to Ld. Counsel for complainant, a presumption arises in favor of complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of his legally enforceable debt or liability towards the complainant. He submitted that the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence to rebut the aforesaid presumption, even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, as the accused has not taken any action or initiated any proceedings against the complainant, if the cheque in question Ex. CW- 1/1 has been misused by the complainant, as has been alleged by the accused. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon an authority reported as Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC
106.
12.Per Contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has not taken any financial assistance from the complainant. The cheque in question was misplaced by the accused for which he had also given the stop payment mandate to his bank on 10.03.2021. The onus to prove the alleged loan transaction in question between the complainant and the accused is on the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the accused did not issue the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/1 to the complainant and the cheque has been misused by the complainant. The accused did not even fill the particulars on the cheque in question.Digitally signed
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 RADHA by RADHA KULSHRESHTHA Page 8 of 20 KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:42:52 +0530 G. DISCUSSION ON PRINCIPLES OF LAW
13.Before the appreciation of evidence and reflecting upon the defence of the accused, the foremost question that arises before this court is whether the requirements of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are met in the present matter in order for the offence u/s. 138 NI Act to be made out?
14.In order to prove the ingredients of Section 138, NI Act, the complainant has to prove the following ingredients:
i. The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person, from out of that account, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability.
"Debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability ii. 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.
iii. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Digitally signed Page 9 of 20 by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:42:57 +0530 that bank iv. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, 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 thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
v. The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
15.In the present matter, it is admitted by the accused in the notice framed against her u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. that the signatures on the cheque in question are that of the accused. The complainant has also filed the return memo issued by the complainant bank regarding the cheque in question. The complainant has also annexed the copy of legal demand notice sent to the accused along with the tracking report and receiving report issued by postal department. It is, thus, also not disputed that a clear demand for payment of the cheque amount has been made in the legal demand notice.
Perusal of the record and of the cheque, return memo and legal demand notice well establishes the fact that the present case is within my jurisdiction and well within the period of limitation.
16.The undisputed/admitted facts of the present matter establishes that the ingredients mentioned in clause (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) are fulfilled.
Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 14:43:01 +0530 Page 10 of 20
17.However, in order for the complainant to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, all the ingredients of Section 138 have to be independently proved. In order for an offence u/s. 138 NI Act, the most important ingredient that needs to be proved is that 'the cheque was issued towards the discharge of any debt or legal liability.'
18.It is pertinent to discuss that every negotiable instrument including a cheque carries with it certain presumptions which have been clearly laid down in Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act and are reproduced as below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments . --Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
--
(a) of consideration: --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;
139. Presumption in favour of holder. -- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
19.Conjoint reading of the above-mentioned provisions prima facie lays down that it is safe to presume that the ingredient mentioned in clause (i) CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Digitally signed Page 11 of 20 by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:43:10 +0530 has been established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
20.However, in order to rebut the presumption, the onus shifts upon the accused to prove that the cheque in question was not issued towards discharge of any debt or legal liability. The accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt but only has to establish a plausible defence acceptable to the court.
21.In order for the accused to rebut the above-mentioned presumption, reliance can be placed upon Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 reiterated as below:
"25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference or 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."
22.With regard to the defence that may be adduced by the accused, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, AIR 2009 SC 1518-
"20....The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA CC NI Act No.25919/2021 KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 Page 12 of 20 14:43:14 +0530 of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non- existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist..."
23.In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is to be examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumption 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 so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused again on the complainant.
24.In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court shall now first examine that whether the accused has been able to prove his defence in affirmative or not, by carrying out scrutiny of the evidence which has been led at the trial.
25.In the instant case, perusal of the case record reveals that the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/1 is dated 15.11.2021 and complainant presented the said cheque in his bank account in Kotal Mahindra Bank, Branch- Uttam Nagar, New Delhi- 110059 for its encashment but the same got dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" and was returned to the complainant along with cheque return memo dated 17.11.2021 Ex. CW-
Digitally signed by RADHACC NI Act No.25919/2021 RADHA
KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA Page 13 of 20
Date: 2024.10.23
14:43:18 +0530
1/2. The complainant has annexed the copy of legal demand notice Ex. CW-1/3 along with receiving report issued by postal department Ex. CW- 1/4 and the tracking report Ex. CW-1/5. It is, thus, not disputed that a clear demand for payment of the cheque amount has been made in the legal demand notice.
H. REASONS FOR THE DECISION
26.The defence of the accused which has been brought out after reading his answer in notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C broadly revolves around the fact that he has not taken any loan from the complainant. The accused had misplaced his cheque book in 2021 and he had also issued 'stop payment' directions to his bank. He has no idea how the cheque in question came in possession of the complainant as he had not issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. The accused in his Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C reiterated his defence recorded in notice u/s. 251 framed against him.
27.The complainant has stated in his complaint that accused had in fact, taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- was transferred through cheque and Rs. 50,000/- were given in cash. However, there is no receipt or acknowledgment of the loan amount nor there is any financial agreement to that effect as it was friendly loan since both the parties were related. Per Contra, the accused has submitted that he had not taken any financial assistance from the complainant.
28.In the present case, it is not disputed by the accused that the cheque in question bears his signatures and belongs to his bank account being Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA CC NI Act No.25919/2021 KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Page 14 of 20 Date: 2024.10.23 14:43:23 +0530 maintained by him. The accused has in fact admitted his signatures upon the cheque in question though denied the fact of filling the other particulars such as name, date, and amount. The said proposition has been duly observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197. The relevant paras are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: -
"36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."Digitally signed by RADHA
RADHA CC NI Act No.25919/2021 KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Page 15 of 20 Date: 2024.10.23 14:43:28 +0530
29.In the present case accused has duly admitted his signatures upon the cheque in question though denied the fact that he issued the cheque in favour of the complainant, however, failed to establish this fact by any cogent evidence or by explaining as to how did the cheque in question come into the possession of the complainant thereby attracting the presumption of section 139 of NI Act in favour of the complainant.
30.Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused or drawer of the cheque. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 has held that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable in nature and for rebuttal of the same accused need not even step into the witness box as he can rebut the same by placing reliance on the material brought on record by the complainant.
31.It is also a well settled legal position that the presumptions can be rebutted even by raising presumptions of fact and law on the basis of material available on record. It is further well settled that the standard required from the accused to prove his defence is preponderance of probabilities and accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts.
Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
14:43:33 +0530
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Page 16 of 20
32.In the present case, since the accused has admitted his signatures on cheque in question, there arises an initial presumption in terms of Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act not only regarding existence of legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant but also regarding issuance of cheque in question by the accused in favour of complainant in discharge of his aforesaid liability since accused has failed to prove the fact that he did not issue the cheque in question in favour of the complainant by leading any cogent evidence and has merely denied it. It is trite to mention herein that the said presumption is rebuttable in nature and whether or not the accused has been able to rebut the said presumption is a question of fact which needs to be decided after appreciation of entire evidence led on behalf of both the parties in the light of guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned herein above and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
33.In the present case since, the accused has chosen not to examine himself as a witness and has only examined bank witness on his behalf, so, now it is to be seen in the light of cross-examination of the complainant and defences taken, whether he is successful in demolishing the case of the complainant by bringing on record such material which could result the Court to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant. In the present case, the accused has tried to rebut the presumptions u/s. 118(a) and 139 NI Act on the ground that the complainant has stated that he had initially given the loan for two years but he stated during his cross-examination that he had given the loan for one year. Thus, there is a contradiction in the Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:43:37 +0530 CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Page 17 of 20 statement made by the complainant in his complainant and during his cross- examination.
34. The word 'contradict' according to the Oxford Dictionary means "to affirm to the contrary; to be directly opposed to; to go counter to; to deny categorically". The word contradiction is not defined under the Evidence Act or under the Code. Contradiction means "A state or condition of opposition in things compared; variance, inconsistency, contrariety". The Cambridge Dictionary defines the word contradiction as "the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else what is said earlier". ... In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:
26. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be "contradicted" would affect the credit of the witness....
35.In the present case, accused has miserably failed to give any explanation as to how did his blank signed cheque went into the possession of the complainant. However, the accused had put question regarding the GPA Mark A/D1 and agreement to sell Mark A/D2 to the complainant but has failed to explain to the Court as to how the said documents are relevant in the present matter. Further, the complainant has also annexed the copy of his bank passbook Ex. CW-1/6 (OSR) which clearly proves the fact that the complainant had transferred Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused on 01.12.2018, hence the same stands established.Digitally signed by RADHA
RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
Page 18 of 20
14:43:42 +0530
36.In the present case, with regard to the cheque in question, the complainant has proved that he had given a loan amounting to Rs. 1,50,00/- though he has not been able to prove the factum of payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused. Further, the complainant has presumptions of law in his favour whereas the accused has not been able to bring on record any such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Hence, there is no acceptable reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant on this point.
37. Thus, the accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised in favour of the complainant even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and therefore, the onus has not shifted to the complainant to prove the transaction in question. For the reasons stated before, it can be adduced that on a scale of probabilities, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption against him and hence, the ingredient under clause (i) has been sufficiently established.
H. DECISION
38.In view of the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in proving his case as per law. Consequently, accused is held guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Digitally signedCC NI Act No.25919/2021 RADHA by RADHA KULSHRESHTHA Page 19 of 20 KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2024.10.23 14:43:46 +0530
39.Accused is, thus, convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
40.Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the Open Court on 23.10.2024.
This Judgment consists of 20 signed pages.
Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signed by RADHA RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2024.10.23
14:43:51 +0530
RADHA KULSHRESHTHA
JM FC (NI ACT) Digital Court-07
South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
23.10.2024
CC NI Act No.25919/2021 Page 20 of 20