Delhi District Court
Teknodome India Private Limited vs M/S Digital Svc India Pvt Ltd on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHAY CHOUDHARY: JMFC NI DIGITAL COURT
NUMBER 01, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX
TEKNODOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Vs.
M/S DIGITAL SVC INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
CC NI ACT No. 283/2022
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CC NI Act number : 283/2022
2. Name of the complainant : Teknodome India Private Limited
3. Name of the accused : 1. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd.
2. Satyender Kumar, Director Digital
SVC India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Baby Bala, Director, Digital SVC
India Pvt. Ltd.
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Accused no.1, 2 and 3 are convicted
7. Date of Institution : 05.01.2022
8. Date of judgment/order : 30.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The core facts of the case of the complainant which need recital are as follows:-
The complainant is a company engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of consumer electronics and related products across India. In April 2021, the accused no. 2 and 3, representing accused no. 1 company namely M/s Digital Digitally signed by ABHAY CHOUDHARY ABHAY CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 14:33:04 +0530 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1 Out of 10 SVC India Pvt. Ltd., approached the complainant for supply of 500 units of Open Cell 32" LED TVs and assured timely delivery of quality goods. Relying on these assurances, the complainant issued purchase order and made an advance payment of Rs, 8,01,066/- to the accused. Despite receiving the advance, the accused persons failed to supply the goods as per agreed terms. Upon repeated requests for refund, the accused persons issued one cheque bearing no. 612529 dated 18.08.2021 for Rs.
8,01,066/-, drawn on Union Bank of India, Noida. Upon its presentation the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement" vide return memo dated 15.11.2021.Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 14.12.2021, which was duly served upon the accused persons. Despite that the accused persons failed to make the payment within the stipulated time period. Consequently, the present complaint was filed.
2. The accused persons appeared before the court and notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") was served upon them on 14.10.2022 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In their defence, they stated that LED panels were supplied to the complainant, who later alleged the goods were defective. The accused assured replacement under a one-year guarantee. However, the complainant allegedly demanded a refund and requested issuance of some cheques but failed to return the defective goods. The ac- cused claim that the cheque in question was misused despite no existing liability. Accused No. 2 admitted to signing the cheque and filling in the amount and date. Both accused admitted receiving the legal demand notice.
Digitally signed by ABHAY CHOUDHARYABHAY CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30 14:33:09 +0530 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
2 Out of 10
3. The application under section 145(2) of NI Act filed on behalf of the accused persons was allowed on 14.10.2022 considering the defence taken by them during the framing of notice and an opportunity to cross examine the complainant was provided to them.
4. In order to substantiate the claim, AR of the complainant, Sh. Abhijeet Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex. CW1/1 is the Board Resolution. are the
(ii) Ex. CW1/2 is the purchase order.
(iii) Ex. CW1/3 is the ledger account.
(iv) Ex. CW1/4 is the cheque in question.
(v) Ex. CW1/5 is the return memo.
(vi) Ex. CW1/6 (colly) is the legal demand notice and the postal receipts.
(vii)Ex. CW1/7 (colly) is the tracking reports.
5. When the matter was then listed for the cross examination of the AR of the complainant, none appeared on behalf of the accused persons for the next three dates of hearing despite issuance of NBW's against them as a result of which the right of the accused persons to cross-examine the AR of the complainant was finally closed on 09.07.2024.The order by which the right of the accused person was closed has not been challenged by them in any Court of law and has accordingly attained finality.
Digitally
signed by
ABHAY
ABHAY CHOUDHARY
CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30
14:33:15
+0530
CC NI ACT No. 283/2022
Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
3 Out of 10
6. All the incriminating evidences were put before the accused persons and statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.07.2024.The accused persons reiterated the same defence as taken by them during framing of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., stating that the complainant did not return the defective goods and has presented the cheque in question without any existing liability of the accused persons. The accused persons further stated that they do not wish to lead defence in the present matter after which defence evidence was closed vide separate statements of both the accused persons.
7. Matter was then listed for final arguments and liberty was given to both the par- ties to file written submissions.
8. Ld. Counsel for Complainant has argued that all the requirements of Section 138 NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case and he has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, all the ingredients of section 138 of NI Act have been duly satisfied and presumption u/s 139 of NI Act is drawn in favour of complainant. It has been further argued that the accused failed to raise any probable defence and rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act, therefore, accused is guilty of of- fence punishable u/s 138 NI Act.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that the present complaint is based on false and fabricated facts as the accused had not given the cheque in question to- wards discharge of any debt or legal liability and the same was given towards the as- surance of replacement of goods given by the accused persons to the complainant. It Digitally signed by ABHAY CHOUDHARY ABHAY CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30 14:33:21 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 +0530 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
4 Out of 10 is also submitted that the accused persons do not owe any liability towards the com-
plainant. It has been further argued that the accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption u/s 139 NI Act and the accused has raised a probable defence in his favour. Therefore, accused persons are not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act.
10. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant must fulfill all the essential ingre- dients of the offence, as highlighted below:
1st Ingredient : The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a pe- riod of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
2nd Ingredient : The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
3rd Ingredient : The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insuffi- ciency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount ar- ranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
4th Ingredient : A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Digitally
signed by
ABHAY
ABHAY CHOUDHARY
CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30
14:33:26
+0530
CC NI ACT No. 283/2022
Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
5 Out of 10 5th Ingredient : The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
Therefore, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence un- der Section 138 of the N I Act.
11. After analysis of the material on record it is undisputed position that cheque in question was issued by the accused persons and it bears the signatures of accused no
2.Further, from the unrebutted testimony of CW1 qua presentation and dishonour of the cheque in question and unimpeached dishonour memo, the factum of present- ment of the cheque within its period of validity and the factum of its dishonour stands established. As regards the legal notice, the receipt of the same has been ad- mitted by the accused persons at the time of framing of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., and during recording of their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C.
12. Before examining the defence of accused, it is pertinent to note that the accused no 2 during framing of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., and in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Accord- ingly, this Court raises presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that the impugned cheque was issued by the accused persons to the complainant in dis- charge of legally enforceable debt or liability. In order to rebut the presumptions, the burden of proof shifts to the accused persons to prove on a preponderance of proba- bilities that there was no liability for the amount of impugned cheque. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused persons to raise a Digitally signed by ABHAY CHOUDHARY ABHAY CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 14:33:32 +0530 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
6 Out of 10 probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recover-
able debt arisen in favour of the complainant.
13. At the same time, it is clear that a bare denial of passing of consideration and ex- istence 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 the 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 circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. From the legal provisions and the law laid down in various judgments, it can be safely gathered that it is for the accused to rebut the pre- sumptions. He can do so by cross examining the complainant, or by leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant. It is amply clear that the accused does not need to discharge his or her liability beyond the shadow of reason- able doubt. He just need to create holes in the case set out by the complainant and create a reasonable doubt over the version put forth by the complainant.
14. 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 Digitally signed by ABHAY ABHAY CHOUDHARY CHOUDHARY Date: 2025.07.30 14:34:11 +0530 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
7 Out of 10 from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cited as V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172 (2010) DLT 561.
15. It is also important to note that the accused persons were granted an opportunity to cross-examine the AR of the complainant after which the accused persons did not avail this and failed to cross-examine the AR of the complainant on multiple occasions as a result of which the right of cross-examination was closed. In the absence of any cross-examination the case of the complainant remained unrebutted, unshaken and free from any doubt. In fact, the signatures on the cheque having been not disputed, and the presumption under section 118 and 139 having taken effect, the complainant's case stood satisfied every ingredient necessary for sustaining a conviction under section 138.
16. Further, the other defence of the accused was that the complainant has misused his cheque which was given for the purpose of assurance to the complainant, however no action has been taken by way of registering a police complaint in order to prosecute the alleged illegal conduct of his cheque having been misused by the complainant. Any prudent person would at-least file a complaint with the bank or police to prevent misuse of cheque but the failure to lodge/file any complaint, further causes dubiety to lurk around the story of the defence. If no amount was due, but cheque was retained, they immediately would have protested and asked the cheque to be returned despite this, there is nothing on record that the accused ever asked the complainant to return his cheque or gave instructions to the bank to stop payment of the cheque in question that was allegedly misused by the complainant. An adverse Digitally signed by ABHAY ABHAY CHOUDHARY CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30 14:34:18 +0530 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
8 Out of 10 inference can safely be drawn against the accused persons who have otherwise failed to adduce any evidence to show that they indeed did everything within their power and control, as a prudent person would do, to ensure that the cheque was not misused.
17. In absence of any proof/ evidence, the plea of the accused cannot be accepted. It is well established principle of law that 'mere taking plea is no proof of it'.The accused persons have miserably failed to discharge the evidential burden, the fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant. It will be in utter disregard to the established principles of evidence, if this court accepts the version of accused devoid of any documentary evidence to concretise the proof. The story of accused persons, in the absence of any cogent evidence, cannot be taken as a gospel truth, specifically, when the complainant has established his case. The accused have failed to adduce any evidence to prove the same. The accused persons were required to prove the non existence of liability/ debt by either direct evidence or by bringing on record their defence on a scale of preponderance of probabilities.
18. The accused is not required to conclusively prove his evidence in support of his defence to rebut the presumption but he has to show certain circumstances or lead evidence so that the court either believes his defence to exist or the court considers its existence so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, believe the same. However, the accused has failed to do so. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the Digitally signed by ABHAY ABHAY CHOUDHARY CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30 14:34:25 CC NI ACT No. 283/2022 +0530 Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
9 Out of 10 complainant. Without rebutting the presumption, the onus to prove his case will not shift to complainant. It is clear the accused has not led any cogent evidence to rebut presumptions under section 118/139 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Court finds that the accused persons have not been able to raise any probable defence and have failed to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the complainant.
19. Comprehensive perusal of the evidence led on record shows that the accused persons have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant and have also failed to create any doubt over the case put forth by the complainant. Thus, having considered the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that the complainant has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act. Resultantly, the accused no.1 namely M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd., accused no. 2 namely Satyender Kumar and accused no. 3 namely Baby Bala are held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act qua the cheques in question.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by ABHAY
CHOUDHARY
ABHAY
on 30.07.2025. CHOUDHARY Date:
2025.07.30
14:34:30 +0530
(Abhay Choudhary)
Judicial Magistrate First Class
(NI ACT) Digital Court No.1
Tis Hazari Courts, West, Delhi
Note:- This judgment contains 10 pages and each page has been digitally signed by me.
CC NI ACT No. 283/2022Teknodome India Private Limited vs. M/s Digital SVC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
10 Out of 10