Delhi District Court
Rites And Jones Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd vs New Tyre Centre on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TANMAY BATHAM,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT - 03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI
JUDGMENT
Complaint Case No. 7781/2019
Title of the case Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.
New Tyre Centre
Name of the Complainant Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.
through its
AR Mr. Piramanayagam Avudaiappan
Name of the Accused M/s New Tyre Centre
through its proprietor Mr. Ramchandra Rai
Date of Institution 09.10.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment 03.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement 05.01.2026
Offence complained of Under Section 138 NI Act
Offence charged with Under Section 138 NI Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Argued by: Mr. Arjun Drall, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Hemant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Accused.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., through its AR Mr. Piramanayagam Avudaiappan (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") against the accused M/s New Tyre Centre, through its proprietor Mr. Ramchandra Rai (hereinafter referred to as the Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 1 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:23:45 +0530 "Accused") under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). The substance of allegations of the complainant is that it trades in different kinds of lubricants, coolants and brake fluids etc. with the brand name of "EUROILS" which is a duly established brand in the market and is supplied to various parts of India. That the accused approached the complainant in the month of September/October, 2016 for becoming a Channel Partner of complainant and Mr. Ajay Kumar signed a written agreement i.e., Channel Partner Agreement and also handed over a security check along with the documents, as sought by the complainant. That it was a clear understanding between both the parties that the said cheque will be used in case the accused fails to make due payment to the complainant. Further, that in continuation of the agreement, the accused placed various orders with the complainant which were delivered on the address of the accused against appropriate invoices/bills/vouchers and were also received by the accused. That as per a mutual running ledger account, a total sales of Rs. 5,17,755/- have been made till date with the accused and against the same the accused has not paid any amount till date. That after deducting other discounts /offers/ coupons/ incentives, an amount of Rs. 1,02,852/- still remains outstanding on the accused.
2. That the AR/Officials of the complainant have made multiple attempts for recovery of the above-said outstanding amount but the accused kept seeking more and more time and the payment has been delayed on one pretext or the other. That due to the delay, the complainant asked the accused telephonically, whether the security cheque given by him can be utilised for the payment of the outstanding amount, to which the accused answered in affirmative. That the accused requested to put a date of 09.08.2019 on the said cheque (hereinafter referred to as the "cheque in question") and to also put the outstanding amount, as the name the complainant was already filled by the Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 2 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:24:04 +0530 accused. That the said cheque in question got dishonoured with the reason "Payment Stopped by the Drawer" with the return memo dated 13.08.2019. The details of the cheque in question are as follows:
· Cheque bearing no. 465002 dated 09.08.2019, for an amount of Rs.
1,02,852/-, drawn on United Bank of India, Kankarbagh Branch, Patna, Bihar
- 800020.
That the accused, despite multiple demands, did not make the payment. That the complainant then issued legal demand notice dated 26.08.2019, through his counsel upon the accused, sent through speed post on 03.06.2017 but despite the passage of stipulated time period, the accused did not honour his legal liability.
NOTICE U/S 251 CRPC
3. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was summoned to face trial vide order dated 14.10.2019 and upon his appearance, a notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C") was served on him on 06.11.2023. In reply to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, but denied receiving the legal demand notice and stated that his shop at the said address closed in the era 2018. He stated that the cheque in question was security cheque given at the time of entering into the agreement. He denied any liability towards the complainant and stated that he has already paid the entire dues to the complainant and has closed his business with the complainant in 2017. He further stated that he has returned certain material at the time of settlement of the account and remaining amount due payable from his side was only Rs. 20,000/-. He stated that the settlement of account took place in writing and that the complainant did not issue the "No Dues Certificate" to him despite several Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 3 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:24:16 +0530 requests. He further stated that, at the time settlement, it was agreed that he would be paying approximate Rs. 9,000/- after recovering the coupon from the market. He stated that the complainant has not established contact with him since then. He said that he has closed his business in the year 2018. He stated that the complainant had issued him the Form C for the purpose of CST in the year 2018.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, an application under Section 145 (2) Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") was made by the accused seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant and the same was allowed. During the trial, in the Complainant's Evidence (hereinafter referred to as "CE"), the complainant has led both oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant himself stepped in the witness box as CW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/1 and relied on following documents:
No. Title of the Document Exhibited As
1 Board Resolution Ex. CW1/A
2 Channel Partner Agreement Ex. CW1/B
3 Retail Invoice Ex. CW1/C
4 Ledger Account of Complainant Ex. CW1/D
5 Cheque in question Ex. CW1/E
6 Cheque Return Memo Ex. CW1/F
7 Office copy of legal demand notice Ex. CW1/G
8 Postal receipt alongwith tracking Ex. CW1/H
Complainant was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and all the Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 4 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:24:28 +0530 exculpatory suggestions put to complainant were duly denied by him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused reiterated his defence taken in his plea of defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C. He further alleged that the complainant has misused his blank signed security cheque given at the time of entering into the agreement with him. He admitted issuing stop payment instructions to his bank, as the complainant did not return his cheque despite settlement.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Thereafter, the accused led his defence evidence whereby, he led oral evidence of himself as DW-1. The accused also led the following documentary evidences:
No. Title of the Document Exhibited As
1 E-mails from complainant company Mark A (Colly)
2 Form C Mark B
All the incriminating suggestions put to the accused were duly denied by him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. The final arguments were heard in the matter and I have heard the ld. counsels appearing for the parties and I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 5 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:24:42 +0530
8. Following arguments have been advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant:
a) That all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. That the admission of the accused regarding his signatures, when seen in light of Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act, shifts the onus upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not given in discharge of any liability; and that the accused has not been able to raise any probable defence regarding the same.
b) That the accused has admitted having a Channel Partner Agreement and therefore cannot escape his liabilities now.
c) That the accused has produced a fabricated letter of settlement without any receipt of payment, and if the argument regarding repayment is to be enquired, the said settlement has been entered into with an unauthorised person and hence cannot be held to extinguish the liabilities of the accused.
d) Lastly, that the defence of the accused has been inconsistent and has failed to punch holes in the version of the complainant. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
9. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued on the following grounds:
a) That the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the accused has settled the whole amount due from his end and has gotten a Form C issued in his name.
b) That the complainant has misused the cheque given for the purpose of security without the consent of the accused.
c) That the complainant has not served any legal demand notice on the Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 6 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:25:02 +0530 accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
10. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to examine the legal requirements that both parties must meet before delving into the peculiar facts of the present case. The complainant must satisfy the following five essential components to make out the offence under section 138 NI Act: -
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity; Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth 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; Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
11. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if all of the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
First and Third Ingredient
12. The proof of first and third ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheque, Ex. CW1/E which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within the validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/F due to the reason i.e., Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 7 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM Date:
BATHAM 2026.01.05 16:25:19 +0530 "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". As such, on the basis of the above, the first and third ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
Fourth And Fifth Ingredient
13. With regard to the fourth ingredient, the complainant has proved on record the legal notice Ex. CW1/G and ineffective delivery of same through postal receipts and copies of tracking reports Ex. CW1/H. The accused in his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he did not receive any legal demand notice as he had closed the shop at the address mentioned in the legal demand notice in 2018. However, in his cross-examination, the accused changed his version and stated that he had left the address mentioned in the the legal demand notice in 2017. The inconsistency regarding the defence of the accused is apparent. Furthermore, no evidence has been brought on record by the accused to show that he had in fact left the address mentioned on the legal demand notice and that the same was informed to the complainant as well. Hence, it could be concluded that the legal demand notice was sent on the correct and last known address of the accused.
14. Once it has been established that the legal demand notice by the complainant was sent on the last known address of the accused, a presumption in the light of the Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act will come into play and it could be reasonably presumed that the legal demand notice was served on the accused. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 8 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:25:31 +0530 respect of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under section. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under section 138 , by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
Accordingly, the argument of accused that he did not receive the legal demand notice due to change of address is rejected and the legal demand notice is deemed to have been served. Therefore, the fourth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
15. The fact that the full payment of the cheque amount was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed. Therefore, the fifth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
Second Ingredient
16. Now, it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved or not. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the signature of the accused on the cheque in question is not denied. In the plea of defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C and in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted being a signatory to the cheque in question. Under the NI Act, once the accused admits his signatures Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 9 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.01.05
16:25:40
+0530
on the cheque, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. The second presumption is contained under Section 139 of NI Act which casts a reverse onus upon the accused. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
17. It has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise 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.
In view of the above principles, a reverse onus is cast on the accused who has Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 10 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:25:57 +0530 to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. The arguments raised by the accused have been considered in totality and have been contrasted with his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C., his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the evidence brought on record by both the parties. The contentions raised by the accused are being discussed below.
CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION (A) That the Accused has made full payment to the Complainant in pursuance of their settlement:
18. The foremost defence which the accused has taken is that he has already made the full payment to one Mr. Khan in the year 2017, who was the representative of the complainant company and has also received a written acknowledgement from him that is exhibited as Ex. CW-1/accused. The accused further submits that the factum of settlement gets further validated by the fact that the complainant has also issued a Form C for the purpose of Central Sales Tax that is exhibited as Mark-B. The ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has also corresponded the same with the complainant through e-mails, exhibited as Mark-A, and it is an acknowledged fact between both the parties that all the payments have been made by the accused.
19. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the complainant has denied any such full payment by the accused and has maintained that the accused still owes Rs.
1,02,852/- to the complainant. The ld. counsel for the complainant argues that the said acknowledgement letter is a fabricated one as it is only a hand-written letter that has been prepared by the accused to evade his liabilities. He further argues that even if, in arguendo, the assertion regarding the repayment is to be accepted, the same has been made to one Mr. Khan who is not an authorised personnel to settle the accounts and receive the payments on behalf of the Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 11 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:26:10 +0530 complainant and hence the liability of the accused will not be extinguished if he enters into any arrangement with him for the payment of the invoices raised in his name. He further argues that the accused has not been able to present the receipt of payment of Rs. 54,803/- to Mr. Umesh Kumar, which further weakens his case and shakes the credibility of the defence being raised by him.
20. The perusal of the record shows that the only documents upon which the claim of repayment of purportedly settled amount is being made by the accused are the photocopy of the handwritten acknowledgement letter (Ex.
CW-1/accused) and the copy of the issued Form C (Mark-B) by the complainant. Both of these documents have not been duly exhibited as they are only a photocopy that are not annexed with the relevant certificate in compliance of the Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . Since the veracity and the genuineness of these documents have not been established duly by the accused first, his reliance on these documents does not put forth a strong case. Moreover, the accused has not been able to bring the original acknowledgement letter despite his admission in his cross-examination that he is having the original in his possession. Regardless, with umpteen caution, the court has perused the said acknowledgment letter Ex. CW-1/accused, which shows that the accused has made a payment of Rs. 54,803, to Mr. Umesh Kumar 'as per H.O. instructions'. No clarity has been brought by the accused regarding the said instructions and as to who had issued them. Furthermore, no proof of any such payment made to Mr. Umesh has ever been brought on record by the accused. The accused has admitted that no such receipt has been ever made by him and that he doesn't remember exactly when a request for issuance of such receipts was conveyed to the complainant. It is expected out of a reasonable man to execute a written receipt of such payment being made by him towards a settlement and in the absence of any such receipt, the veracity of Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 12 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:26:24 +0530 the defence being raised by the accused cannot be authenticated.
21. Though the accused failed to establish its veracity, however the trail of e-mails (Mark-A), between the complainant and the accused has been perused by the court. The complainant therein has denied the assertion of the accused regarding settlement with Mr. Khan and Mr. Umesh stating that they are not the authorised personnel to settle the accounts on behalf of the complainant. This denial of the complainant strikes right at the core of the defence of the accused and the accused has been aware about the same since even before he marked his presence before the court, despite that he has not made the said Mr. Khan and Mr. Umesh as his defence witnesses in his list of witnesses. The abstention of the accused to bring forth the original documents, to annex the validating certificates in favour of his electronic evidences and to bring forth relevant witnesses raises sizeable doubts on his defence. Further, Form C under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act is merely a declaration form, not a proof of payment for the goods themselves. Its primary purpose is to enable a registered purchasing dealer to buy eligible goods from another state at a concessional CST rate. Hence, the accused cannot solely rely on the issuance of Form C to affirm that he has also made the payment in furtherance of any settlement arrived between the parties. Accordingly, the argument of the ld. counsel for the accused that the accused has made full and final payment as per their settlement is rejected for want of substantiation.
(B) That the Complainant has misused the security cheque of the Accused:
22. It has been a consistent defence of the accused that the cheque in question was only a security cheque that has been misused by the complainant and that too without any notice to the accused. The complainant has also not shied away from admitting that the cheque in question was security cheque that was kept with him and that has been filled-up partially after the telephonic Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 13 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:26:36 +0530 conversation with the accused. The ld. counsel for the accused has argued that since the cheque was only given for the purpose of security, its dishonour will not invite the wrath of Section 138 NI Act on the accused.
23. It is a trite law that a security cheque is in itself not a worthless piece of paper that cannot come to an aid of the creditor (seller) when the amount has become due and the debtor (purchaser) has defaulted on the same.
Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sripati Singh (since deceased) Through His Son Gaurav Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 252253/2020], wherein the following has been held:
"16. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.
17. ... Therefore, there cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque."
24. Notably, the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that he had entered in to the Channel Partner Agreement with the complainant Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 14 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:27:51 +0530 and had also received the goods against the invoices annexed in the complainant. The accused has alleged that since the goods have been returned back, the legally enforceable liability qua the cheque in question does not remain and that the security cheque has been presented after filing up the particulars by the complainant himself. These arguments are dealt in following prongs:
Firstly, The argument of the accused regarding return of goods has been discussed in detail above and has been rejected for want of merits. It is not the case of the accused that the complainant has misused his cheque by obtaining it through deceit or stealth, on the contrary, the accused has consistently been admitting throughout the trial that the cheque in question was given by him to the complainant for the purpose of security of the business transactions between them. Accordingly, the security cheque given by the accused as well will become a validly issued negotiable instrument in discharge of the liability and the complainant will have a right to present the same for encashment upon the default of the accused.
Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 has held that "when a signed blank cheque is voluntarily given to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, and that will not invalidate the cheque". Hence, considering this fact and the law on point as emanating from the judgments cited above, the argument of the ld. counsel for the accused regarding the misuse of the security cheque is hereby rejected.
25. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion is that the accused has failed to prove that there was no legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the second ingredient is also proved in the present case.
Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 15 of 16 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:27:10 +0530 CONCLUSION
26. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in establishing his case. The signature on the cheque is admitted by the accused and the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act is raised against the accused. The accused has failed to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence. The defence of the accused that his security cheque has been misused despite his settlement with the complainant is liable to be rejected in view of glaring contradictions and deficiencies in the defence of the accused. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the accused M/s New Tyre Centre, through its proprietor Mr. Ramchandra Rai is hereby convicted of the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the Digitally convict. signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM ORDER: CONVICTION BATHAM Date:
2026.01.05 16:26:51 +0530 Announced in the open court (TANMAY BATHAM) on 05.01.2026. JMFC (NI ACT-03) THC (West), Delhi 05.01.2026 Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signature.
Ct. Case No. 7781/2019 Rites and Jones Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New Tyre Centre Page No. 16 of 16