Delhi District Court
Safeweld Engineeers vs Deepak Indoria on 27 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: 2025.06.27
16:06:35 +0530
(Signature of Presiding Officer)
Date: - 27.06.2025
CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 1 of 15
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GOEL, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST
CLASS) MAHILA COURT- 02, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURT, DELHI.
CC No. 13332/2017
CNR No. DLCT020251102017
M/S SAFEWELD ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. DEEPAK INDORIA
U/s 138 N. I. Act
PS HAUZ QAZI
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case 13332/2017
2. Date of institution of the case 25.10.2017
3. Name of the Complainant M/s Safeweld Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office At 4026, First Floor, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006 Through its Director: Sh. Vashudev Mittal
4. Name of Accused, parentage Deepak Indoria, Proprietor of M/s and address System Electro Controls, Regd. Office:
GG-IInd/66C, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
6. Plea of Accused Accused Deepak Indoria pleaded not guilty.
7. Final Order Accused Deepak Indoria is convicted.
8. Date of pronouncement 27.06.2025
1. Factual Matrix: The brief facts as alleged by the complainant in the complaint is that the complainant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is dealing in the business of Safety Equipment, Welding Material & Electrical Goods and the present CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 2 of 15 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Date: 2025.06.27 GOEL 16:06:49 +0530 complaint has been filed by Sh. Vasudev Mittal Authorised Representative/Director of the complainant company and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present complaint. The accused no. 1 is the proprietor and is dealing with the complainant under the name and style of his proprietorship firm namely M/s System Electro Controls. The accused through its representatives have approached the complainant to purchase various goods on credit and place and order and assured the payment and thus believing upon his statement, the complainant sent the goods to the accused through invoice no. SEIPL/2740/2017-18 dated 29.06.2017 which were duly received by the accused. The accused issued two post-dated cheques having cheque no. 775 dated 29.06.2017 and cheque no. 776 dated 15.07.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,35,000 and Rs. 1,41,254/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Branch Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana. The cheque no. 775 dated 29.06.2017 was presented by the complainant in his bank which was dishonored vide returning memo dated 01.07.2017 and immediately AR of the complainant contacted the accused, to which the accused asked for some time to make the payment and also made a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- however, the accused delayed the remaining payment and keep on asking more time. The complainant presented the second cheque bearing no. 776 dated 15.07.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,41,254/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Branch Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana to its banker namely KOTAK Mahindra Bank having its branch office at Chawri Bazar, Delhi which was dishonored vide returning memo dated 19.08.2017 on account of Insufficient Funds. An amount of Rs. 1,76,254/- is still due towards the payment of the said bill, which the accused is liable to pay alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. for which the complainant shall be filing separate suit CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 3 of 15 Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA GOEL Date: GOEL 2025.06.27 16:06:57 +0530 under order 37 CPC against the accused. Thereafter, the complainant through his counsel Sh. Mohit Batra issued a legal demand notice dated 18.09.2017 and the same was deemed to be served upon the accused on 22.09.2017 as the notice sent on the address was received back with report "unclaimed" and the notice sent on one of the addresses of accused was received by accused on 20.09.2017 but despite service of said legal notice accused persons failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the complainant within stipulated period. 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 01.11.2017 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 Board Resolution dated 05.10.2017 Ex. CW1/1
2 Copy of Certificate of Incorporation dated Ex. CW1/2
30.11.2010
3 Invoice No. SEIPL/2740/2017-18 dated Ex. CW1/3
29.06.2017
4 Copy of Bank Statement of complainant company Ex. CW1/4
5 Original cheque bearing no. 000776 dated Ex. CW1/5
15.07.2017 for sum of Rs. 1,41,254/- drawn on CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 4 of 15 Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA GOEL Date: GOEL 2025.06.27 16:07:05 +0530 Andhra Bank, Branch Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana.
6 Original Return memo dated 19.08.2017 Ex. CW1/6 7 True printout of the mutual ledger account Ex. CW1/7 8 Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex CW1/8 9 Office copy of Legal demand notice dated Ex. CW1/9 18.09.2017 10 Original Post receipt dated 18.09.2017 Ex. CW1/10 11 Original Postal receipts dated 18.09.2017 Ex. CW1/11 12 Envelope Ex. CW1/12 13 Tracking report Ex. CW1/13
3. Summoning of the Accused: On finding of a prima-facie case against the accused, accused was summoned on 01.11.2017. Accused appeared in person on 21.10.2019.
4. Framing of notice & plea of defence: Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 06.03.2023 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 had purchased goods from complainant but the goods supplied to me were short in quantity. Cheque in question was given as security cheque. I suffered losses in my business due to short supply of goods by complainant. I have no idea whether or not I am liable to complainant. Complainant was harassing me. I do not wish to say anything else."
5. Admission denial of document u/s 294 CrPC : Accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Accused has stated that particulars on the cheque in question have not been filled by him. Accused has admitted the cheque return memo. Accused has stated that he do not CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 5 of 15 Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA GOEL Date: GOEL 2025.06.27 16:07:14 +0530 remember whether he has received the receipt of legal demand notice. Accused has stated that address on legal demand notice is correct.
6. Evidence of the Complainant: Matter was put up for CE. CW1 Vashudev Mittal was examined in chief, cross examined and discharged on 03.04.2024. CE was closed vide order of even date. Matter was put up for recording statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC.
7. Statement of the Accused: Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C. on 19.07.2024 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 had purchased goods from complainant but the goods supplied to me were short in quantity. Cheque in question was given as security cheque. I suffered losses in my business due to short supply of goods by complainant. I have no idea whether or not I am liable to complainant. Complainant was harassing me. I do not wish to say anything else. I have sufficient knowledge of the accusation against me."
8. Defence Evidence: Matter was put up for DE. No DE was conducted by accused despite multiple opportunities, therefore, right to DE was closed vide order dated 23.05.2025. Matter was put up for final arguments.
9. Ld. counsel for the complainant has not placed reliance upon any judgment.
10. On 30.05.2025, Ld. Counsel for accused has filed various documents alongwith judgments as part of his written arguments. Perusal of written final arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for accused showed that he had filed several documents by labelling them as annexures. On enquiry from Ld. Counsel for accused as to why he has filed these documents alongwith final arguments, he submitted that he could not file these documents at CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 6 of 15 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Date: 2025.06.27 GOEL 16:07:23 +0530 the time of defence evidence due to non-appearance of Anil Tiwari as defence witness. It was made clear to Ld. Counsel for accused vide detailed order dated 30.05.2025 itself that the documents which have been filed in the form of various annexures shall not be read in evidence as they were not tendered in evidence by any witness during CE or DE.
11. Ld. counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon M/s Kalamani Tex vs. P. Balasubramanian, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 82, M/s Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. M/s Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. AIR OnLine 2014 SC89, MMTC Ltd. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 234, Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Dev. Agency (2016) 10 SCC 458 and Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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 CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 7 of 15 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Date: 2025.06.27 GOEL 16:07:31 +0530 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 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).
16. 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 CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 8 of 15 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL Date: 2025.06.27 GOEL 16:07:40 +0530 upon him to rebut it. Accused has cross examined the complainant to rebut the presumption raised against him.
First contention of accused- Goods were supplied in short quantity.
17. As per notice u/s 251 CrPC/ Statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC, case of accused is that he had purchased goods from complainant but the goods supplied to him were short in quantity.
18. Complainant has filed invoice no. SEIPL/2740/2017-18 dated 29.06.2017 (Ex. CW1/3) and ledger (Ex. CW1/7) showing outstanding liability as Rs. 1,76,254/- and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the ledger (Ex. CW1/8) alongwith the complaint. No cross examination has been done by accused qua these documents. In view of the settled law on this aspect, non-cross examination of the complainant leads to admission of the documents on part of the accused. (Reliance has been placed on Laxmi Bai Through LRs and Another Vs Bhagwant Bua Through LRs and Others [2013 SCC OnLine SC 101] and Ravinder Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi) [2012 SCC OnLine Del 1869]. Therefore, invoice and ledger alongwith certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stands proved in favour of the complainant.
19. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute that goods were indeed supplied to the accused. The only bone of contention which remains is that goods were supplied in short quantity.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that Anil Tiwari should have been examined by the complainant. The written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for accused can be described as self-contradictory at best. As per the written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for accused, Anil Tiwari was the intermediary and although accused had met the complainant through Anil Tiwari, accused never really had any direct transaction with the CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 9 of 15 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.27 16:07:49 +0530 complainant but at the same time the goods were not supplied in proper quantity by complainant to accused. Complainant has deposed in his cross examination that he met accused through one Anil who is GM in Neptune India and date and amount in words on the cheque were filled by Anil. Argument of Ld. Counsel for accused is superfluous as accused has not disputed the transaction in question and has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. It is immaterial that Anil Tiwari has not been examined by the complainant in a pure and simple business transaction. If Anil Tiwari was a witness of the magnitude as Ld. Counsel for accused has made him out to be, accused should have taken steps in examining him as the onus to dispel the liability was upon the accused. Even cross examination has not been done by Ld. Counsel for accused qua the role of Anil Tiwari in the business transaction in question.
21. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no test certificate was issued by complainant to accused as per BIS Act 2016 and has, thus, committed breach of contract with the accused. Complainant has deposed that accused never demanded the same from him. Even this submission of Ld. Counsel for accused is self-contradictory as it is the case of accused as per written arguments that accused did not have direct transaction with the complainant. Accused has failed to produce the copy of this contract which has got breached of which it was an essential condition that complainant was supposed to issue a test certificate under BIS Act 2016 to the accused. The burden to prove that this was an essential condition to the transaction between complainant and accused failing which accused did not remain liable to complainant to make payment for the goods supplied was on accused which he has failed to discharge. Accused did not reply to legal demand notice despite service of the same upon him CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA GOEL Date: GOEL 2025.06.27 16:07:58 +0530 despite the fact that his whole defence is based upon how he had suffered due to inaction by the complainant even after being communicated about the short supply of goods.
22. Accused has not made any efforts to prove that goods were supplied in short quantity and what steps did he take thereafter to rebut the presumption of outstanding debt/liability upon him. Mere statement of complainant in cross examination that accused had called him on 25.07.2017/26.07.2017 to inform the complainant about short supply of material and complainant's denial that the goods have not been sent in short quantity proves nothing in favour of accused.
23. Reliance placed by Ld. counsel for the accused on M/s Kalamani Tex vs. P. Balasubramanian, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 82, MMTC Ltd. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 234, Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Dev. Agency (2016) 10 SCC 458 and Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 will not aid the accused as they were decided in their own facts.
24. Reliance placed by Ld. counsel for the accused on M/s Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. M/s Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. AIR OnLine 2014 SC89 will not aid the accused as the same pertained to post-dated cheques issued by the accused/purchaser as an advance payment in respect of purchase orders which could not be carried to its logical conclusion and material/goods for which purchase order was placed was not supplied by the supplier which is not the fact situation in the present case.
25. Therefore, accused has not been able to prove that goods were supplied in short quantity by the complainant.
Second contention of accused is that the cheque in question was a security cheque.
CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 11 of 15 Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.06.27
16:08:06 +0530
26. As per complaint, accused issued two post-dated cheques having no. 775 dated 29.06.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,35,000 (Not the cheque in question) and cheque no. 776 dated 15.07.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,41,254/- (cheque in question). Cheque no. 775 dated 29.06.2017 for Rs. 1,35,000 returned dishonoured vide returning memo dated 01.07.2017. On being contacted by the complainant, accused made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and delayed on making the remaining payment. Complainant presented the second cheque bearing no. 776 dated 15.07.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,41,254/- (cheque in question) which returned back dishonored vide returning memo dated 19.08.2017 on account of insufficient funds. As per complaint, an amount of Rs. 1,76,254/- is still due towards the payment of the said bill alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. As per notice u/s 251 CrPC/ Statement of accused u/s 281/313 CrPC, case of accused is that cheque in question was given as security cheque and accused suffered losses in his business due to short supply of goods by complainant and he has no idea whether or not he is liable to the complainant.
27. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sripati Singh (Since Deceased) V. State of Jharkhand, (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002) that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction can also be presented to recover outstanding dues from accused.
28. The contention of accused that cheque in question was given as a security cheque and could not have been presented stands failed.
29. 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.
CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 12 of 15NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.06.27 16:08:14 +0530
30. Complainant has been able to prove that the cheque in question was 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.
31. Remaining ingredients of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881:
A. Cheques in question 000776 dated 15.07.2017 has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn.
B. It shall be presumed1 that the said cheque has been dishonored as complainant has produced bank's slip/memo dated 19.08.2017 having therein the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" and no evidence has been led to disprove the said fact.
C. Payee has made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice dated 18.09.2017 in writing by way of speed post (shown by original speed post receipt dated 18.09.2017) to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
D. Accused has stated that he does not remember whether or not he has received the legal demand notice. Accused has further stated that address on legal demand notice is correct. The address mentioned on legal demand notice is same as that of the address furnished on bail bonds.
E. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.' [(2007) 6 SCC 555] 1 Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 13 of 15 Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.06.27
16:08:22 +0530
that if sender has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short "G.C. Act") could profitably be imported in such a case and service of notice is deemed to have been effected on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service. F. No evidence has been led from the side of the accused to rebut the presumption of service.
G. 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.
H. Thus, second, third, fourth and fifth ingredients of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 stand proved against the accused.
32. As all the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act stand cumulatively satisfied against the accused, therefore, accused DEEPAK INDORIA is held guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and is hereby convicted for the same. Let accused be heard on the point of sentence separately.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2025. Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA GOEL Date:
GOEL 2025.06.27
16:08:31 +0530
(NEHA GOEL)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(MAHILA COURT)-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI
CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 14 of 15
CC No. 13332/2017 M/s Safeweld Engineers Vs. Deepak Indoria Page 15 of 15