Delhi District Court
Ajab Singh vs Rajender on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT,
NORTH EAST, KKD, NEW DELHI
Presided over by-Ms. Ravisha Sidana, DJS
DLNE020158692022
CC NO. 1131/2022
Ajab Singh
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o H.No. C-41, gali no.5,
Patel Vihar, Harijan Basti,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094 ......... Complainant
vs
Rajender
S/o Sh. Kanhaiya
R/o H.No. C-51/6, gali no.3,
Sadatpur Extention, near
Jeewan Jyoti Senior Secondary,
School, Delhi- 110094 ........ Accused
Digitally signed
RAVISHA by RAVISHA
SIDANA
1.Offence complained of Section 138SIDANA of Negotiable Date: 2025.02.28 16:59:23 +0530 or proved Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)
2. Date of Filing 28.09.2022
3. Plea of Accused Not Guilty
4. Date of Reserving Order 03.02.2025
5. Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025
6. Final Order Acquittal Argued by :- Ld. counsel for the complainant Sh. Anita Sharma Ld. counsel for the accused Sh. Kuldeep Singh CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 1 of 20 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Vide this judgment the present complaint case for an offence punishable U/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the NI Act") is being decided.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is having friendly relations with the accused as the accused is his neighbor. The accused approached the complainant for financial assistance for some urgent work and requested the complainant to lend a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Upon repeated requests of the accused, the complainant gave the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused. The accused at the time of receiving the above said financial assistance of Rs.7 lacs, assured to repay the above said financial assistance amount. When the complainant demanded from the accused the aforesaid repayment of financial assistance loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and the accused has issued two cheques bearing no. 037067 dt. 01.08.2022 of Rs. 5,00,000/- and cheque no. 037068 dt. 01.08.22 of Rs.2,00,000/-, drawn on Bank of Maharastra, Yamuna Vihar, Gokul Puri Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant in discharge of his legal liability and assured that same would be honoured on its presentation.
3. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the cheques no.037067 and 037068 before his banker for encashment with his bank i.e. State Bank of India, Karawal Nagar, Delhi but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 2 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28 17:00:58 +0530 unpaid with remarks "Funds insufficient" vide return memo dated 09.08.2022.
4. The complainant had sent a legal notice dated 20.08.2022 to the accused through his counsel regarding the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque through registered AD & speed post and the same was served upon the accused on 25.08.2022. The accused has neither replied nor make payment of the cheque amount and therefore, the present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. After being satisfied of the prima facie ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 13.12.2022.
6. Accordingly, on 13.02.2023 upon first appearance of the accused, the accused was released on bail and vide the same date Notice under Section 251 Cr.PC r/w Section 263(g) Cr.P.C was framed and served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While putting forth his plea of defence, the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and stated that other details have not been filled by him as he had issued a blank signed cheque to the complainant. He has denied receiving the legal demand notice alleging that he never resided at the given address mentioned on the legal demand notice.
During his plea of defence, the accused has admitted that he had CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 3 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28 17:01:06 +0530 taken a friendly loan of Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant in 2014 and has repaid the same. After repayment of the loan he demanded his blank signed cheques from the complainant but he refused to give the same to him. He further pleads that the impugned cheques were given as security at the time of taking loan in 2014. He states that the complainant has misused his security cheques and he does not owe the liability qua the cheques in question towards the complainant.
7. In Complainant's evidence, the complainant (CW-1) tendered his evidence affidavit in post summoning evidence Ex.CW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex.CW1/A(colly) : Original cheque no.
037067 & 037068
ii) Ex. CW1/B : Returning memo dt.
09.08.2022
iii) Ex.CW1/C : Legal Notice dt.
20.08.2022
iv) Ex.CW1/D : Speed post receipt
v) Mark A : Tracking report.
vi) CW/1F : Copy of complaint
8. CW1/complainant was cross examined on behalf of the accused. During cross examination, CW1 has stated that he had studied till class IX. His source of income is rental income. He admits that he has signed the complaint after his counsel explained the contents of the complaint to him.
9. Upon specific questioning as to the date of transaction and date of receiving the cheques in question, he deposed that he does not remember the date of transaction or date of receiving the CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 4 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA RAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:01:20
+0530
cheques from the accused. Upon confrontation, he stated that he cannot read the contents as his eye sight is weak. Further, he admitted that the cheques in question were given as security by the accused against the loan amount of Rs.2 lacs borrowed by the accused. He voluntarily states that he has lent several times to the accused. He testifies the presence of Mrs. Rajpalli (his aunt), Gyanwanti (his mother), Robin (elder son) at the time of lending the alleged amount to the accused. Upon confrontation with the list of witnesses, he admits that the abovesaid names are not mentioned in his list of witnesses. With regards to his financial capacity, he deposed that his annual income is Rs. 6 lacs (approx.). Further, he shows ignorance as to the income tax rules as per which he cannot lent more than Rs. 20,000/- in cash. He does not file the ITR. He denied the suggestions as to the repayment by the accused and that he refused to return back cheques in question to the accused stating that cheques in question were with his son. Thereafter, CE was closed vide order dt. 12.12.2023.
10. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. The accused stated that the said cheques were issued blank signed to the complainant. He further denied the receipt of legal demand notice. He wish to lead Defence Evidence, upon stating that he had only borrowed Rs. 2 lacs in December 2016 and repaid the same to the complainant in May 2018. Therefore, he owes no liability towards the complainant.CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 5 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA
RAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:01:29
+0530
11. Accused has examined himself as DW1. DW1 has
deposed that he had taken a loan of Rs.1 lac (twice) from the complainant. He first borrowed Rs.1 lac in 2016 and second time in 2017. He stated that he had repaid the entire amount to the complainant in presence of one Santosh Kumar. He further states that upon demand of return of his cheques, the complainant refused to return the same and has misused his cheques.
12. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the complainant. During cross examination, DW1 has stated that he did not receive legal demand notice on 20.08.2022 from the complainant. He receives a salary of Rs. 55,000/- to 60,000/- per month. He further clarifies that he repaid Rs. 2 lacs to complainant in 2018 in cash and arranged the amount of Rs.2 lacs by selling his two buffalows, one month's salary and borrowing Rs.40,000/- from his friend but he denied any document in this regard. He denies the suggestion as to the story of the complainant as to borrowing of Rs. 7 lacs from the complainant and issuing the impugned chequed for the aforesaid liability. Thereafter, DE was closed on 13.09.2024.
13. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the case of the complainant is proved and cheques are also in the favour of the complainant. The complainant has proved all the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act, therefore, the accused must be convicted and the amount should be recovered. On the CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 6 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA RAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:01:42
+0530
other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the legal demand notice has not been served upon the accused and therefore, no cause of action arose against the accused. He further argues that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of a concocted story and that the complainant has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and prays for the acquittal of the accused.
14. I have heard ld counsel for the complainant and Ld. Defence counsel for the accused & considered the respective arguments as well as gone through the case file very carefully. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides.
14A. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence as laid down by Hon'ble supreme court in Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel(2022) 11 SCC 705:
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 CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 7 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA RAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:01:48
+0530
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.
14.1 It is settled law that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Presumption under section 139 of NI act is raised in favour of the complainant. The presumption raised is a rebuttable presumption and the onus on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting, the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. [Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (AIR 2019 SC 1983) See also Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513] 14.2 The phrase "unless the contrary is proved" u/s 139 is of vital importance clarifying that the rebuttal of the presumption has to be supported by proof and not mere plausible explanation.
The liberty is granted to the accused to either rely on evidence led by him in his support or the material relied by the complainant to raise his probable defence. In addition to the materials brought on record, the circumstances relied upon can also draw the inference of preponderance of probability lying in the favour of the accused.
15. In the case at hand, the proof of the first and third ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheques (Ex. CW1/A colly), which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheques in question were presented within the validity period. The cheques in question were returned unpaid vide return memos (Ex. CW1/B) due to the reason, "funds insufficient", which falls CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 8 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28 17:02:01 +0530 within the purview of section 138 NI Act. As such, on the basis of the above, the first and third ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
16. With regard to the fourth and fifth ingredient, the complainant has proved on record legal notice Ex. CW1/C and postal receipt Ex. CW1/D. The postal receipt Ex. CW1/D was addressed to the accused at the House no. C 51/6 and sent by the counsel for the complainant dated 23.08.2022, the Tracking Report (Mark A) confirms the delivery of the same on 25.08.22 at the Karawal Nagar SO. In Ergo, the accused has denied receipt of the legal demand notice in his Notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C. as well as in his Statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, although the address mentioned in the legal demand Notice is not disputed. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice also becomes disputed. Therefore, the fourth ingredient requires adjudication subject to which, the fifth ingredient of the offence shall stand proved LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE NOT RECEIVED
17. The first line of defence taken by the Ld. counsel for the accused is that legal demand notice as sent by the complainant was never served upon the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused states that accused has never received any legal demand notice and the statutory notice under section 138 of NI Act was neither addressed to the correct ad- dress of the accused nor the same was ever served upon the accused.
CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 9 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHARAVISHA SIDANA Date: SIDANA 2025.02.28 17:02:15 +0530
18. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that they had served the legal demand notice upon the accused on the address as available with them and that accused had appeared in the present case in view of the service of summons served upon the same address.
19. Perusal of the legal demand notice dated 20.08.2022, Ex CW1/C, reveals that the legal notice is addressed to the accused on the address as follows; " Rajender S/O Kanhaiya, ADD- C- 51/6, Gali No. 3, Sadatpur Extension, Near Jeewan Jyoti, Senior Secondary School, New Delhi-110094".
19.1 The same above address finds mentions in the Case Information Format and Memo of parties in the Complaint filed by the complainant. After the summons were issued against the accused vide order dt. 13.12.2022 through all the modes returnable for 13.02.2023, which were served upon the son of the accused against due acknowledgment. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the accused entered his appearance for the first time in the present case on 13.02.23. Vide the same day, the accused furnished his personal bail bond along with the Vakatnama. However, the address mentioned on the personal bail bond, Valakatnama, was C-6/51 instead of C-51/6. The Surety bonds furnished on 15.04.2023 by the son of the accused along with the Identity proofs (Aadhar card) of both the accused and the son of the accused being the surety was house no. C-6/51. Throughout the trial, accused has stated and maintained that he is residing at the address which is;
CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHARAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28 17:02:21 +0530 "C-6/51, Gali No. 3, Sadatpur Extension, Near Jeewan Jyoti, Senior Secondary School, New Delhi-110094."
19.2 On 13.02.2023, at the time of framing of notice against the accused u/s 251 CrPC and on 05.02.2024, while recording of the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC as well as DW1, accused submitted his address as "C-6/51, Gali No. 3, Sadatpur Extension, Near Jeewan Jyoti, Senior Secondary School, New Delhi-110094."
19.3 The purpose of highlighting the above timeline was to see what address was furnished by the accused during said timeline. Further, it is important to highlight here that during cross examination of the accused as DW1 dated 13.09.2024, when accused stated that, "I did not receive the Legal demand Notice", neither any question nor any suggestion was put to the accused to refute his claim of not receiving the legal demand notice.
20. To support his contention, counsel for accused has relied upon the judgments of Engineering Control vs Banday Infratech Pvt Ltd ., as delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Laddakh, CRMC 381/2018, to contend that as the legal demand notice was not served upon the accused, therefore, no cause of action arises for prosecution of accused under section 138 NI Act.CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 11 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28 17:02:28 +0530
21. It is evidently clear that legal demand Notice was never addressed to the accused on his correct address which is , C-6/51, Gali No. 3, Sadatpur Extension, Near Jeewan Jyoti, Senior Secondary School, New Delhi-110094. Further, as accused has specifically denied the receipt of the legal demand notice and complainant has failed to produce any document or material to show that the address as utilised by the complainant in the legal demand notice belonged to the accused, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the address on the legal demand notice was correct address of the accused.
22. It is settled law now that, once the material on record suggests that the statutory notice of demand was sent by the complainant on a wrong address of the accused, the presumption of receipt of notice by the accused does not arise. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr , VI (2007) SLT 442, that when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 of the NI Act stands complied with. Similarly as stated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in R.L. Verma and Sons (HUF) vs. P.C. Sharma, Crl .
Revision 438/2017 , that, "34. Since the pre-condition of filing a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of sending a statutory notice has not been satisfied in the present CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 12 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA RAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:02:33
+0530
case, no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant to file the subject complaint."
23. The Courts in the above cited judgments have emphasized that the notice should have been sent on the correct address of the drawer of the cheque. It is only then it can be said that notice has been received by the drawer of the cheque.
24. In the present case, it is clear that, there is no service of statutory notice upon the accused and presumption of service of the statutory notice also does not arise in the facts of the present case as the notice sent to the accused was not correctly addressed. The contention of the counsel for complainant that accused entered her appearance in the present case upon service of the summons at the given address and the same address has been mentioned by the accused during his examination as DW1 does not find resonance with the Court Record as the address mentioned by the accused in his examination dt. 13.09.24 and the summons were not received by the accused but by the son of the accused, who was found at that area during the service of summons.
25. Since service of legal demand notice is one of the pre- condition of filing a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same cannot be dispensed with, therefore, no cause of action arises in favour of the complainant to file the complaint.
CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 13 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANARAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:02:40
+0530
26. Presumably, even if it is deemed that the legal demand Notice was duly served to the accused and upon the admission of the issuance and the signature on the cheques, the Presumption u/s 139 r/w 118 NI Act was stated to be raised in favor of the complainant, the adjudication on merits of the case is herein dealt with.
IMPUGNED CHEQUES WERE GIVEN AS SECURITY
27. The first defence taken by the accused is that the cheque in question was given as security and not for discharging any legally enforceable debt or liability, hence, the accused cannot be made liable for the offence u/s. 138 NI Act On this point, it is profitable to mention the judgment of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1174 , wherein it has been held that merely because a cheque has been issued for only security purposes will not absolve the accused from the liability u/s. 138 NI Act. It has been further held that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the accused would very much be liable u/s. 138 NI Act for issuance of a security cheque also, if on the date of the presentation of such cheque, there has not been a prior discharge of debt, or if the cheque has not been given towards advance payment, the goods in respect of which have not been received CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 14 of 20 by the other party, or if other than this there has been change in circumstances which precludes the complainant from depositing the cheque with the bank.
28. In the present case, it is the complainant's version that the cheques in question were issued by the accused upon the persistent requests and demands by the complainant as the accused had sought time on one pretext or the other. The factum of friendly relations is not disputed by parties during their Evidence. The issuance of the impugned cheques on the account of the accused is admitted. The signatures on the impugned cheques pertain to the accused. It is the specific version of the complainant that the cheques in question were issued by the accused for the discharge of his liability for the friendly loan of Rs. 7 lakhs for some urgent work and dire necessity.
29. In Ergo, the stance of the accused during his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC and recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC is that the impugned cheques were issued blank signed to the complainant as security for the loan transaction of Rs 2 Lakhs between the parties in year 2014..
30. The Defence of the Blank signed cheques given as security has been stated to be correct by the complainant during his cross- examination dt. 12.12.23. An unequivocal admission surfaces on the behalf of the Complainant during the cross examination that the cheques in question were given to him as security against the loan amount of Rs 2,00,000 lent to the accused.
CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 15 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANARAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:02:47
+0530
31. As discussed, even in case of blank signed cheques, the statutory presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 would be raised in favour of the complainant. Therefore, in an instant case, since, the accused has admitted the execution of impugned cheque, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
IMPUGNED CHEQUES WERE NOT IN DISCHARGE OF LOAN OF RS 7,00,000
32. The last defence taken by the accused is that he had not taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- as stated in the complaint and had only taken a loan in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in 2014 and the same has already been repaid.
33. The Date of the alleged transaction of lending Rs 7,00,000 and the delivery of the impugned cheques is not stated in the complaint and Pre Summoning Evidence Affidavit (CW1/1) and even during Post summoning stage during his cross-examination dt. 12.12.23. The purpose of lending the loan, as mentioned in Complaint and PSE affidavit Ex.CW1/1, was specifically that the accused was in urgent need of money due to dire necessity. No specific purpose of lending alleged amount of Rs 7,00,000 has been cited by the complainant at any stage. With regards to the date of advancement of the alleged loan or the date of receiving the impugned cheques from the accused, the complainant is unable to recall the date of the transaction or the receipt of the CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 16 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA RAVISHA Date:
SIDANA 2025.02.28
17:02:54
+0530
impugned cheques from the accused, which shows that the
complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands.
34. Reliance is placed by this court on the judgment of John K. John vs. Tom Varghese, (2007) 12 SCC 714 , whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that advancement of a huge sum of loan without execution of any written documents or without charging any interest is a significant circumstance and is not conducive with the conduct of a reasonable prudent person.
35. Further, Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that the complainant has not been able to prove the source of funds of the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- allegedly advanced by him to the accused. Ld. counsel for the accused has further submitted that the complainant has taken contradictory stands pertaining to the source of funds of this amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. In this regard, the attention of this court is drawn towards the statements made by the complainant during his cross-examination dt. 12.12.23, in respect of the alleged source of funds of the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as follows:
Cross-examination of the complainant dated 12.12.2023:
" My annual income is Rs. 6 Lacs(approx.). Vol. It is my rental income. I do not know that as per the Income Tax Rules, I cannot give more than Rs. 20,000 in cash.
*** At the time of giving money to the accused, Mrs. Rajpalli (my aunt), Gyanwanti (my mother), Robin (elder son) were present. At this stage, witness is shown the list of witnesses, it is correct that the above mentioned names are not mentioned in my list of witnesses."CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 17 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA Date: SIDANA 2025.02.28 17:02:59 +0530 35.1 It is settled position of law that in case of cash transactions, showcasing that the complainant did not have requisite financial capacity and source of funds to lend money to the accused amounts to a probable defence and may aid the accused in rebutting the presumption accrued in the favor of the complainant. (Reliance is placed upon Tedhi Singh vs. Narayan Dass Mahant (2022) 6 SCC 73). It is highly improbable that any prudent person earning Rs 6 lakhs per annum would lend Rs 7 Lakhs in cash, without any specific purpose.
36. Therefore, considering that in the first instance, the cause of action never arose for filing the complaint under section 138 NI Act as the ingredient no. (iv) and (v) of Section 138 NI Act were not fulfilled due to service of the legal demand notice at the wrong address and further, Blank signed security cheques was issued by the accused, duly admitted by the complainant and that the aforesaid blank signed cheques was not issued for discharge of alleged loan of Rs 7,00,000. The burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability has been discharged by the accused and he has been able to rebut the presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
37. In the considered opinion of this court, the complainant has not successfully been able to prove the advancement of the remaining sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused. It is astonishing to note that the complainant has advanced such a huge sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in cash and without execution of any written document/receipt in this regard and against the established law CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 18 of 20 Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28 17:03:07 +0530 regarding cash transactions, i.e., that there cannot be any cash transaction for a sum more than Rs.20,000/-. In my considered opinion, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the complainant had given an additional sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused as loan in cash.
38. In view of the above discussion, the accused has successfully been able to show on the basis of evidence on record that the accused had not taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- as stated in the complaint and had only taken a loan in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in prior transaction between the parties and the same has already been repaid.
39. It is also imperative to understand that in order to pronounce a conviction in a criminal case, the accused 'must be' guilty and not merely 'may be' guilty. For an accused to be guilty, guilt should not be based on mere surmises and conjectures but it should be based on cogent evidence.
Ratio: In light of above facts and circumstances, the accused has probablized his defence by exposing gaping holes in the case of the Complainant. The case of the complainant is not made out as they have not been able to show the existence of liability of the accused to the amount mentioned on the cheque in question and the ingredient no. (ii) could not be proved. The same was fatal to the case of the complainant. Also, the complainant failed to establish the pre-condition (iv) & (v) of filing a complaint u/s 138 NI Act by sending a statutory notice.
CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 19 of 20
Digitally
signed by
RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA
SIDANA Date:
2025.02.28
17:03:13
+0530
40. Accordingly, the accused RAJENDER is acquitted of the offence of section 138 NI Act with respect to the cheques in question.
Announced in Open Court on 28.02.2025 This Judgment consists of 20 pages and each page has been signed.
Digitally signedRAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.02.28 17:03:23 +0530 (RAVISHA SIDANA) JMFC-NI ACT (DIGITAL COURT) NORTH EAST;KKD COURTS;DELHI CC NO. 1131/2022 Ajab Singh vs Rajender Page 20 of 20