Delhi District Court
In Re: Nirmal Chander Panda vs . Shiv Shankar on 24 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT,
MM, NI ACT-06, SOUTH WEST, DWARKA, DELHI
IN RE: NIRMAL CHANDER PANDA VS. SHIV SHANKAR
YADAV
CC No. 12657/2020
CNR No. DLSW02-018394-2020
Nirmal Chandra Panda
S/o Sh. Nishakar Panda
R/o M-2-D, Gulmohar Apartment,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-18
........Complainant
Versus
Sh. Shiv Shankar Yadav,
C/o Yadav Tea Stall,
WZ-139, C/3 Bhanu Complex,
Gali No. 2, New Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi
.........Accused
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.11.2014
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 138 N I
Act
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24.09.2022
DECISION : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. The instant matter has originated out of a complaint under section 200 Cr.PC read with Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N I Act'), filed by the complainant against the accused alleging that cheque dated 20.08.2014, amount 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) bearing no. 100918(State Bank of India), issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, in discharge of a legal debt or other liability, has been dishonoured and the accused has not paid the said amount even after receiving the Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 1 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 prescribed legal demand notice. By virtue of this judgment, the present complaint is being is disposed of.
Brief Facts of the case
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused was his family friend and shared cordial relations with him. In February, 2013, the accused approached the complainant for a financial help of Rs. 4 lakhs to expand his business and to cover his business losses. The complainant arranged funds from his relatives, neighbors and gave the said amount through RTGS/NEFT from his bank account 5130091228, Citi Bank, to the accused, in his bank account bearing no. 30225808453, SBI, Vikaspuri. Some amount was also given by way of cash since February 2013 to March 2014, at different intervals. The accused promised to pay the complainant the entire amount on or before 01.08.2014. When the complainant asked the accused to repay the loan amount, the accused kept on postponing the repayment on one pretext or the other. Thereafter on 20.08.2014, the accused issued cheque bearing no. 100918 amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs, drawn on SBI, Vikaspuri, to the complainant and stated that he will pay the remaining Rs. 1 lakh in September 2014. Upon the said cheque being presented for encashment, the same got dishonored vide return memo dated 21.08.2014, with the reason 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 03.09.2014 through registered AD and courier on the address of the accused. Despite delivery of the said legal notice, the accused did not make the requisite payment within the prescribed time. Being aggrieved by the above state of affairs, the complainant instituted the present complaint.
3. Pursuant to presentation of the present complaint, summons were issued against the accused. Upon the appearance of the accused, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against him vide order dated 29.01.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 2 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 defence recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. on the same date, the accused stated that he gave a blank signed cheque to the complainant, as a friendly loan, in the presence of Ramasheesh and Kailash Chand and the complainant also signed a receipt regarding the cheque in question. He instructed the complainant to deposit the cheque only after consulting him, if he has money in his account, but the complainant deposited the cheque without his permission. Previously also, he had given friendly loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant and the same was repaid by the complainant through his bank account and by cash. The complainant has misused his cheque. The accused also stated that he did not receive any legal notice from the complainant.
4. In support of his case, the complainant -Nirmal Chander Panda has examined himself as CW-1 and presented the following documents:
(i) Bank statement of his account - bearing no. 5130091228 (01.01.2013 to 31.01.2013) as Ex.CW1/1;
(ii) Cheque in question as Ex.CW-1/2;
(iii) Return memo as Ex.CW1/3;
(iv) Legal notice as Ex.CW1/4;
(v) Postal receipt as Ex.CW1/5;
(vi) Courtier receipt as Ex.CW1/6;
(vii) Registered AD Card Ex.CW1/7.
5. During his examination in chief, complainant has reiterated the contents of his complaint. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and in his cross examination dated 29.08.2016, he stated that he knows the accused since 4 years. He has visited the house of the accused many times but does not know how many floors are there in his house or the exact number of the family members of the accused. The witness further said that he knows the accused and two of his brothers, and it was the accused who introduced him to the two of his brothers. He visited the ground floor of the house of the accused he has denied the suggestion that he never visited the house of the accused and therefore, he does not know anything about the family members of the accused and articles Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 3 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 lying in the house of the accused. The witness denied the suggestion that there are six members in the family of the accused.
6. The witness/ complainant- Nirmal Chander Panda(CW-1) further stated that accused does business of Basmati Rice (he supplies manpower in Rice factory). The amount deposited in the bank account of the accused was Rs. 2,40,000/-. The amount of approximately Rs. 2000/- was given by him to the accused, several times, in various months. He had paid Rs. 1 lakh in cash to the accused, which was given in the same month, in which the transaction of his bank account reflects. Apart from Rs. 4 lakhs, no other transaction was made between him and the accused. He has denied the suggestion that the accused does not owe any money to him, instead he owes Rs. 3 lakhs to the accused. He has denied the suggestion that when the accused gave him the alleged cheque, a settlement note was made.
7. The cross examination of the witness/ complainant- Nirmal Chander Panda(CW-1) was deferred and in his further cross examination dated 26.12.2016, he stated that he did not give loan to anyone besides Shiv Shankar. He knows Rohit Raman, who is his friend, for more than 5 years. His monthly income is more than Rs. 60,000/-. He filed his ITR regularly, but has not shown the loan amount in his ITR. The cheque in question was received by him in a duly filled condition. He did not give loan to the accused in one go as the accused demanded it on various occasions. He has denied the suggestion that he did not have Rs. 3 lakhs at the time of advancing the loan. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused has not taken any loan from him at any point of time. He has denied the suggestion that the amount shown in the bank statement is the amount which he had to repay to the accused. He does not know Ramashish or Kailash. Upon a hand written statement of the complainant (Ex.CW1/D1) being shown to the witness, the complainant denied execution of the same. He stated that the Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 4 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 signatures on the same are forged. He has denied the suggestion that he signed the AD Card (Ex.CW1/7) and fabricated the 'AD' (acknowledgment due), to prove the receiving of the legal notice. He has denied the suggestion that anyone in need of loan will take lump sump amount and not installments. He has denied the suggestion that the payment shown in his bank accounts (5875 dated 12.03.2013, 4813 dated 13.05.2013, 5125 each dated 17.06.2013 and 03.07.2013, 5875 dated 12.08.2013 and 6250 dated 09.09.2013) are return of loan amount with interest, which he borrowed from the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he took a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the accused regarding which the accused gave the cheque in question to him.
8. CW-2/Ankesh Kumar, Customer Assistant, SBI Vikaspuri, stated that he has brought summoned record pertaining to account number 30225808453, Shiv Shankar Yadav and Vijay Shankar Yadav from 01.01.2012 to 01.06.2015 (Ex.CW2/1). The details of the cheque(Ex.CW2/2) were also brought by the said witness. In his cross examination, the witness stated that the said account is a joint account.
9. In his statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused stated that he had not issued the cheque to the complainant but to Rohit Raman, friend of the complainant, with whom he had financial dealings. Rohit Raman and complainant have filed a false case against him, in connivance with each other. He came to know the complainant only through Rohit Raman. He had a dispute with Rohit Raman and therefore, the present case has been instituted against him to take revenge. The accused also stated that he has not received the legal notice in the present matter.
10. The accused chose to lead defence evidence and produced himself as a witness. During his examination in chief, the accused Shiv Shankar Yadav (DW-1) stated that he had not taken any loan from the Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 5 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 complainant. The complainant used to borrow money from him and used to return the same in his bank account on various occasions. Perhaps in the year 2013/14, accused asked him for a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs, however, as he did not enough funds in cash at that time, he gave two signed cheques and asked him to present the same upon his instructions. He agreed to lend Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant. He had to receive payment from a third party, which he did not receive, and he told the complainant about the said fact. The complainant misused both the cheques. One Rohit, who is the friend of the complainant, has got the other cheque dishonored and in that regard, another case is pending against him. He used to lend money to complainant as well as Rohit and they used to return the same by depositing small amounts like Rs. 6000/- or Rs. 7000/- in his account, on various occasions. He had given Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant approximately 10 years back, in the presence of his brother- Ramashish and Kailash Chand. He had taken money from Shobha Devi, to lend it to the complainant. He is innocent and is being harassed.
11. In his cross examination, the accused stated that he has studied till 10th standard and was an income tax assessee when he worked as a contractor (from the year 2004 to 2015/16). He has not placed on record any document to reflect the transaction between him and the complainant. The document showing transaction between him and the complainant bears signatures of Ramashish. He has denied the suggestion that no such transaction transpired between him and the complainant. He has denied the suggestion that he took a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs from the complainant. He had not shown the loan given to the complainant in his ITR. He has denied the suggestion that he had not mentioned the same in his ITR, as no loan was ever granted by him to the complainant.
12. The witness further admitted that the address mentioned on the legal notice (Ex.CW1/4) and the address mentioned on his bail bond, are Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 6 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 same. He has not received the legal notice as he used to be at Sonipat, while working as a contractor. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in Delhi on 02.09.2014 and 04.09.2014 as his account statement Ex.CW2/1 reflects that he had withdrawn cash from ATM from Dwarka on said dates. The witness voluntarily stated that his brother or someone else would have withdrawn the amount. He has admitted the suggestion that he did not transfer any money to complainant's bank account and also that his account statement Ex.CW2/1, shows that from February 2013 to March 2014, the complainant transferred Rs. 3 lakhs to his account. The witness further stated that he has not placed on record any document to show that he had demanded money, back, from the complainant as the complainant was making regular payments in his account. He has admitted that Rohit Raman has also filed a case against him u/s 138 of the N I Act. He denied the suggestion that he gave a statement in that case that the cheque in question was given by him to the complainant, towards his liability.
13. The witness Ramashish Yadav (DW-2) has stated in his examination in chief that he has a small tea shop in Mahavir Nagar. The complainant and accused used to frequently visit his tea stall. The accused had handed over Rs. 2 lacs in his presence by way of cash to the complainant, he does not remember the reason for the said transaction. He was informed about the present case by accused Shiv Shankar in his cross-examination, the witness stated that he knows the complainant through one Rohit Raman. He did not count the amount handed over by the accused to the complainant. The said transaction took place around 10-11 years ago at about 4 PM. The amount was handed over to the complainant outside his shop and at that time, no one else was present at the spot. There was no written undertaking between the parties at the time of transaction. The witness also admitted that the accused Shiv Shankar is his real brother.
Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 7 of 16 CC No. 12657/202014. The witness Shobha Devi (DW-3) has stated in his examination in chief that she knew the accused Shiv Shankar as he is a friend of her husband. She knows the complainant only by name. Accused Shiv Shankar used to borrow money from him under the pretext that he had to refund the money to Nirmal Chander Panda. Shiv Shankar had taken money ( 2 lacs -1.5 lacs, number of times) from her, somewhere in the year 2010-11. In her cross-examination the witness admitted the fact that she herself did not give money to Nirmal. She also admitted that Shiv Shankar had never given money to Nirmal, in front of her. She further admitted that she is deposing on the basis of what has been told by Shiv Shankar and not from her personal knowledge. She does not work and her husband drives a three wheeler (loading vehicle). Her husband does not file ITRs.
15. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that in view of the fact that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, the presumptions under 118(a)/139 N I Act are attracted and the case is fit for conviction. He has further stated the accused has put up a frivolous defence regarding the fact that he has already repaid the loan amount to the complainant. The witnesses produced by the accused are interested witnesses. The case of the complainant has been duly proved on the touchstone of 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the standard of proof in criminal trials.
16. The opportunity of the accused to advance oral as well as written arguments was closed by this Court vide orders dated 08.09.2022 & 20.09.2022 after he failed to advance arguments, despite several opportunities being given by the court.
Findings of the Court-
Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 8 of 16 CC No. 12657/202017. Before delving into the facts of the case, it is apposite to bear in mind the law with respect to section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act. In order to prove his case under section 138 N I Act, the complainant must prove the following facts-
i) The accused issued a cheque on a bank account maintained by him
ii) The said cheque must have been issued, wholly or partly, in discharge of a 'legal debt or other liability'
iii) The said cheque was presented before the bank within 3 months from the date of issuance and was dishonoured
iv) The payee issued a legal demand notice, within 30 days of receipt of information of dishonour of the cheque
v) The drawer failed to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the said legal demand notice
18. Further, the NI Act raises two important legal presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque as soon as the execution of cheque is proved. As per Section 118(a), NI Act, it shall be presumed that every negotiable instrument was 'made, accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed for consideration, unless the contrary is proved'. Furthermore, as per section 139, NI Act, it shall be presumed that 'the holder of cheque, received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved.'
19. The principles with respect to above mentioned presumptions, have been succinctly laid down in Para 25 of the judgment by Hon'ble apex court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, which lays down as under-
" 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 Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 9 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 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 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."
20. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that in the present matter the cheque in question (Ex.CW1/2) was issued on 20.08.2014. The said cheque was presented before the bank within the stipulated time and was dishonored vide return memo (Ex.CW1/3) dated 21.08.2014 with the reason 'Funds insufficient'. Thereafter, a legal notice (Ex.CW1/4) was sent by the complainant on 03.09.2014, which was delivered to the accused on 16.09.2014, as per the AD Card (Ex. CW1/7). Thereafter, the present matter was instituted by the complainant on 28.10.2014, within the prescribed period of limitation provided by section 142 of the N I Act.
21. Before going into the merits of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is important to deal with the defence of non-receipt of notice taken by the accused. The position of law in this regard is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of Hon'ble apex court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein it has been held that an accused who has not received the legal demand notice cannot claim the benifit of the defence of non receipt of the Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 10 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 same as once summons are served upon him, it is the duty of such an accused to make the payment of the cheque in question within 15 days of recieving summons from the court. Once this option is not availed by him, the benefit of defence of non service of notice cannot be given to the accused. Moreover, in the present matter, as per the AD report Ex.CW1/7, the said legal notice was delivered to the accused on 16.09.2014. It is also pertinent to note that the accused has, during his cross-examination, admitted the fact that the address mentioned in the legal notice Ex.CW1/4 is his correct address and hence, by taking resort to the provision laid down u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, a presumpation can be drawn, that the said legal notice was delivered to the accused. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the defence of the accused regarding non receipt of notice cannot be accepted.
22. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the cheque in question and after its dishonor, the legal demand notice, were both - made/presented within the stipulated period and upon non payment of the cheque amount by the accused after receiving the legal notice, the matter was instituted within limitation. It is pertinent to note that in the present matter, during the course of trial, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. As laid down in Basalingappa (Supra), once the execution of cheque is admitted by the accused, section 139 of the NI Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. In such a case, the onus of raising a probable defence shifts upon the accused.
23. In the present case, the case of the complainant is that the accused had issued the cheque in question (amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-) to him, in part discharge of debt taken by him from the complainant in February, 2013. On the contrary, the accused has taken contrary defences at the various stages of trial. At the stage of framing notice, Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 11 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 the accused has claimed that the cheque in question was handed over by him to the complainant in order to grant the complainant a loan. At the stage of recording of the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC, the accused has contended that he had no financial dealings with the complainant and the cheque in question was issued by him to one Rohit Raman. Finally, at the stage of defence evidence, the accused has claimed that he had already repaid the loan amount by lending money from one Shobha Devi, in the presence of Ramashish.
24. As discussed above, in view of the mandatory presumptions of law as laid down by section 139 of the N I Act, the onus to raise a probable defence in the present case is on the accused. The first defence that the accused has taken (as is apparent from his version at the stage of framing notice) is that, the cheque in question was given by him to the complainant as a friendly loan, in the presence of witnesses Ramashish and Kailash Chand and a receipt regarding the same was also executed. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that during his cross examination, the complainant has remained firm in his stance that apart from the present transaction, he did not have any other monetary transaction from the accused. The execution of acknowledgment (Mark CW1/D), has also been denied by the complainant. The account statements (Ex CW1/1 & Ex CW 2/1) clearly suggest that money has only been transferred from the bank account of the complainant to the bank account of the accused. The accused has himself admitted in his cross examination that amount of Rs. 3 lacs was transferred to his bank account from the bank account of the complainant. Apart from the oral testimony of the accused, there is no other independent evidence to prove the factum of loan sought/granted by the accused to the complainant.
25. The attention of the Court is drawn towards the photocopy of a hand written statement (Mark CW1/D-1), as per which an Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 12 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 acknowledgment has been given by the complainant with respect to the fact that he has taken a loan of Rs. 3 lacs from the accused. However, the said document is merely a photocopy and has also not been exhibited by the Ld. predecessor at the stage of evidence. In such a situation the said document cannot be read in evidence. Even otherwise, if for the sake of argument the said document is considered, it is apposite to mention that since the complainant has denied the execution of the said document, the best possible evidence to prove the said transaction, would have been the independent witnesses- Ramashish and Kailash Chand. Ramashish (DW-2) has not stated anything about the said document during his testimony. Further the accused has neither himself produced witness Kailash Chand, nor has he taken steps to get him summoned by the Court. In these circumstances, by taking resort to the illustration (g) appended Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is inclined to draw a presumption that had the said witness-Kailash Chand been produced, his testimony would have been unfavourable to the defence of the accused. Moreover, it is highly unnatural and contrary to human conduct that a person would grant loan to another person by handing him over a cheque, when he himself does not have sufficient amount in his accounts. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no independent evidence on record to prove the fact that the complainant had taken a loan from the accused. In such a situation, in the opinion of this Court, the accused has miserably failed in discharging his onus of proving the fact that he ever granted any loan to the complainant.
26. The second defence taken by the accused (as is apparent from his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.) is that the cheque in question was issued to one Rohit Raman and not to the complainant and he had no financial dealings with the complainant. The accused has miserably failed in proving the said Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 13 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 defence as the bank statements (CW 1/1 & CW 2/1) clearly suggest that accused and the complainant had financial dealings. The accused has not taken any steps to summon the Rohit Raman or to produce the documents pertaining to the case filed by Rohit Raman against him (accused has stated in his defence evidence that Rohit Raman has also filed a case against him). In such a situation, the present defence of the accused that he handed over the cheque in question to one Rohit Raman and not to the complainant does not appear to be genuine and does not inspire the confidence of this Court.
27. The third defence taken by the accused (as is apparent from his defence evidence) is that he had taken money from one Shobha Devy (DW-3) and returned it to the complainant in the presence of Ramashish (DW-2). In this regard, it is pertinent to note that witness Shobha Devi (DW-3) has stated that accused Shiv Shankar took money from her, to return it to Nirmal, somewhere in the year 2010-11, which is way before the prior transaction took place and even if her testimony is believed to be true, there appears to be no nexus between her transaction with the accused Shiv Shankar and the present case. Further, the said witness herself stated that she can not exactly tell if accused Shiv Shankar gave money to Nirmal or not. As far as the testimony of Ramashish (DW-2) is concerned, it does not lend any strength to the defence of the accused as it is his own version that the transaction between the accused and the complainant (wherein the accused gave Rs. 2 lacs, in cash to the complainant) took place 10-11 years ago i.e. in 2010-11, which again is way before the present transaction took place. Furthermore, admittedly, the accused is the real brother of witness Ramashish (DW-2), which again makes him an interested witness and coupled with other factors, makes his testimony heavy doubtful. In such a situation, the fact that the accused had returned the loan amount to the complainant, cannot be regarded to have been duly proved.
Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 14 of 16 CC No. 12657/202028. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that throughout the trial, the accused has taken contradictory defences. At the stage of notice framing, he stated that the complainant did not advance any loan to him, rather he advanced the loan to the complainant. On the contrary, at the stage of statement of accused, the accused changed his version and stated that he had no dealing with the complainant, rather he had dealings with one Rohit Raman, who had colluded with the complainant to lodge the present case. Thereafter, at the stage of defence evidence, the accused again changed his version and stated that he has already repaid the loan amount to the complainant. In such a situation, the entire defence of the accused seems to be fabricated, concocted and false and in the considered opinion of this Court, the accused has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumptions stipulated by the NI Act (Section 139/118).
29. Before parting with the judgment, it is apposite to mention that as stated by the bank witness Ankesh Kumar (CW-2), the cheque in question was drawn from an account, which was the joint account of Shiv Shankar Yadav and Vijay Shankar Yadav. In this regard, it is axiomatic to state that as per a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various other Hon'ble High Courts (Alka Khandu Avahadh Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra LL 2021 SC 146, Kodam Danalakshmi Vs. State of Telangana LL 2022 (Tel.)
1), in case of joint account, it is only the signatory, who is liable to be punished u/s 138 of the NI Act. In the present matter, since the accused is the signatory of the cheque in question (pertaining to the joint account), there is no iota of doubt in the mind of the court, that he is solely liable for the dishonour of the same.
30. Consequently, in the considered opinion of the court, the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions u/s 118A and 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque was issued by him in discharge of a legal debt. In light of the contradictory versions of the accused throughout the trial, no Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 15 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020 probable defence has been raised by him. On the contrary, the case of the complainant has been duly proved.
CONCLUSION
31. Thus, on account of above appreciation of facts, evidences and materials on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has proved his case on the touchstone of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Consequently, accused- Shiv Shankar Yadav is convicted under the accusation of committing the offence u/s 138 N I Act.
32. This judgment contains 13 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
33. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
34. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. ON 24th SEPTEMBER, 2022 (Shashank Nandan Bhatt) Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-06 South- West, Dwarka 24.09.2022 Nirmal Chander Panda Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav Page 16 of 16 CC No. 12657/2020