Delhi District Court
M/S Intec Capital Ltd vs . Malti Kant on 5 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ADITI RAO
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (N.I.ACT)-03
SOUTH EAST, SAKET: NEW DELHI
1 Complainant case number 631556/2016
2 Name of the complainant M/s Intec Capital Ltd.
Regd. Office:- 701,
Manjusha Building 57,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
3 Name and address of the Mrs. Malti Kant
accused 26 (LGF) Bazar Lane
Bhogal
Jangpura, New Delhi
Also at:-
22 Bazar Lane Bhogal,
Jangpura, South Delhi, New
Delhi
4 Offence complained of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881
5 Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial
6 Final order Conviction
7 Date of institution 04.02.2016
8 Date of reserving the judgment 28.06.2022
9 Date of pronouncement 05.07.2022
-:JUDGEMENT:-
1.The present complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (herein referred to as NI Act) has been filed by M/s Intec Capital Ltd. (herein referred to as the 'complainant') against Mrs. Malti Kant (herein referred to as the CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 1 of 18 'accused').
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant company is a non-banking financial company engaged in the business of extending finance loans facilities including the corporate/companies loans. M/s Print Solutions had applied and availed a corporate finance/loan to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/- for its business purpose under loan agreement no.1610 and loan no.LNNHP00213-140002808 from the complainant and also executed the loan agreement and other documents. Further, M/s Print Solutions had accepted all the terms and conditions of the above stated agreement. The loan amount of Rs.14,50,000/- was secured by M/s Print Solutions from the complainant company as per the terms of the aforesaid agreement. The accused had stood guarantor to the loan extended to M/s Print Solutions and furnished the guarantee for the same and being the guarantor for the loan extended by the complainant company, the accused signed and furnished the personal guarantee for the loan taken by M/s Print Solutions and assured the complainant that in case of failure of M/s Print Solutions in repayment of the loan amount to the complainant, the accused shall make the payment of the loan amount. In order to discharge this legal liability which accrued to the accused as a guarantor, she handed over the cheque bearing no. 983196 dated 01.12.2015 for a total sum of Rs. 12,31,781/- drawn on HDFC Bank, New Delhi in his personal capacity with the assurance that the same would be encashed on its presentation. Thereafter, the complainant presented the above said cheque to its banker HDFC CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 2 of 18 Bank Ltd, Nehru Place, New Delhi. However, the same was returned unpaid by the bank with a reason 'Closed' vide return memo dated 03.12.2015. The legal demand notice dated 23.12.2015 was duly sent by the complainant to the accused by speed post on 26.12.2015 on the last known address of the accused. The accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period. Hence, the present complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') was filed.
3. On issuance of bailable warrants, the accused entered appearance in the present matter for the first time on 07.02.2018 and was admitted to bail. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 10.07.2018, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Her plea of defence was also recorded. Thereafter, accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the same was recorded on 02.05.2022. The accused chose not to lead DE. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
EVIDENCE:-
4. In order to support his case, AR of the complainant had stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. CW-1/1 into evidence wherein averments made in the complaint were reiterated. He also relied CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 3 of 18 upon various documents such as Ex. CW-1/A (OSR) i.e. copy of letter of authority dated 13.09.2021, Ex.CW1/B (OSR) i.e. copy of Board Resolution dated 24.05.2019, Ex. CW1/C i.e. complaint u/s 138 NI Act, Ex.CW1/D i.e. cheque no. 983196, Ex.CW1/E i.e. return memo dated 03.12.2015, Ex. CW-1/F i.e. legal notice dated 23.12.2015, Ex.CW1/G (colly) i.e. speed post receipt, and Ex.CW1/H (colly) that is tracking report.
5. Thereafter, the accused chose not to lead DE in the present matter and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. Final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of both the parties.
APPLICABLE LAW:-
7. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed.
Now, Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act provides as under:
Section 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 4 of 18 unless (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (reduced to three months vide notification no. RBI/201112/251, DBOD AMLBCNo. 47/19.01.006- 2011/12,dated 04.11.2011) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation -- for the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
It is well settled position of law that to constitute an offence under S.138 N.I. Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability; (2) cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (now three months) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the N I Act.
The Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) therein and, secondly, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 5 of 18 Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983, noted at para 23 as follows [Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 referred]:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or 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.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
To put in nutshell, the law regarding the presumption for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act,is that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 have to be compulsorily raised as soon as execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. The onus to prove the issuance of the cheque lies upon the complainant, and the same has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, unless the accused admits the same. Once the issuance of cheque is established, either by admission or by positive evidence, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises. We can summarize the general principles in the following way:
Onus of proof: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 states that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, here the onus shifts upon the accused to prove the nonexistence of debt or CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 6 of 18 other liability. Section 139 of the N.I. Act uses the word "shall presume", which means that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable.
Standard of proof: The standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under Section 139 is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, the onus shifts back to the complainant to prove by way of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge, whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, and now the presumptions under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 will not come to the aid of the complainant. Mode of Proof: The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not supported by consideration, and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the Court need not insist in every case that the accused should prove the nonexistence of the consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that a bare denial of passing of consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances upon the consideration of which, the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist, or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would, under circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist.
As discussed above, from the legal provisions and the law laid down in various judgments, it can be safely gathered that it is for the accused to rebut the presumptions. He can do so by cross examining the complainant, leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant. It is amply clear that the accused does not need to discharge his or her liability beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He just needs to create holes in the case set out by the complainant. Accused can say that the version brought forth by the complainant is inherently unbelievable and therefore the prosecution cannot stand. In this situation the accused has nothing to do except to point inherent inconsistency in the version of the complainant or the accused can give his version of the story and say that on the basis of his version the story of the complainant cannot be believed.
CC No.631556/2016M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 7 of 18 ARGUMENTS AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that all the requirements of Section 138 NI Act have been met with in the present case and hence, the accused be convicted. I have heard the arguments and also gone through the record with due circumspection.
9. In the case at hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the accused has not disputed issuance of the cheque or her signatures on it in the present case, thus, the presumptions under Section 118 (a) read with Section 139 of NI Act about the cheque in question having been issued for consideration and in discharge of legal liability should arise in favour of the complainant. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the complainant has misused the cheque in question with a malafide intention and has presented the same without sending any intimation. It is further submitted as there exists no legal liability which the accused owes to the complainant, therefore, presumption under S. 139 of NI Act, should not arise.
The three-Judge Bench of hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 has held that where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence.
CC No.631556/2016M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 8 of 18 In the present case, the accused has not denied her signatures on the cheque. In notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C framed upon her on 10.07.2018, she has stated that"the cheque bears my signatures." Thus, the factum of signatures on the cheque is not disputed and has been acknowledged.
It is pertinent to mention here that S. 139 only raises the presumption on fulfillment of its conditions that the cheque was issued for discharge of in whole or in part any debt or other liability but there is no presumption as to the existence of the debt or liability as such.
In Rangappa (supra) it has been held that: Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.
10. As regards to the legal notice, the receipt of the same has not been disputed by the accused. It is stated by the accused in the statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C dated 02.05.2022 that "My husband must have received it."
In addition, as per postal receipts in relation to the Legal Demand Notice which are Ex.CW1/G (colly) shows that the Legal Demand Notice Ex. CW1/F was duly sent to the accused at her correct address. As per provisions of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 27 of General Clauses Act, the court may presume that legal notice duly addressed to CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 9 of 18 the accused and dispatched to him by way of post was actually received by the accused, regard being had to common course of natural events. Reliance is also placed upon the case of C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed [2007 (6) SCC 555] wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "it is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of criminal law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. 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 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 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 alongwith 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 General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act."
Hence, in my opinion, fact with regard to legal demand notice is not under question.
11. As regards to the fact of dishonour of the cheque in question, the original return memo filed by the complainant Ex.CW1/E clearly shows that the cheque in question Ex.CW1/D was dishonoured for the reason 'CLOSED'. Thus, taking into CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 10 of 18 account that dishonour of cheque is not disputed, this fact also stands proved.
12. Thus, the presentation of the cheque in question, its dishonour and service of legal notice is not under question. Consequently, the complainant has successfully raised a presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
Accordingly, it is required to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheque i.e., the Complainant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, therefore, shifts on the Accused to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption.
In the segment on legal framework, set out above, the legal proposition with respect to the burden of proof upon the Accused has already been discussed. Hence, it is now to be examined as to whether the Accused brought any material on record or pointed out glaring discrepancies in the material produced by the Complainant for dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
13. In the case at hand, the main defences of the accused are the following:
1. The loan agreement out of which the legal liability is claimed by the complainant to have arisen is a false and fabricated document.CC No.631556/2016
M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 11 of 18 It is the argument on behalf of the accused that the document i.e the loan agreement Mark 01 (colly) is a false document and thereby, could not be read in evidence.
Perusal of the loan agreement Mark 01 (colly) reveals that this document is a photocopy. However, it contains signatures of the accused at the guarantor as well as the borrower column. Further, during the time of cross examination of CW1 dated 30.05.2022. Ld. Counsel for the accused has put a suggestion in relation to this loan agreement stating "it is wrong to suggest that the signatures obtained on the blank formated papers without knowledge and consent of the accused." By way of this suggestion, it was impliedly admitted on behalf of the accused that the said loan agreement contained the signatures of the accused. Once the signatures are admitted, the execution of this document stands proved. In addition, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused, during the time of cross examination of CW1 dated 30.05.2022 has asked questions in relation to contents of the document which again impliedly shows that the accused is not challenging the execution of this document.
Now, in relation to argument of the accused that this document is fabricated in the sense that signatures of the accused were obtained first and contents were inserted later, reference need to be made to illustration (b) of S. 102 of Indian Evidence Act 1972 which states :
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.CC No.631556/2016
M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 12 of 18
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved.
In the context of the above mentioned legal provision, it could be said that once the execution of a document is proved, the onus to prove that the document is a false or fabricated one, is on the person who is challenging its authenticity, by placing on record evidences in support.
In the case at hand, the execution of the loan agreement has been proved in the light of the reasons stated above. The onus to prove the fact of fabrication of the document was on the accused who has failed to bring on record any evidence which could prove that she had signed blank papers and the contents were inserted after the signatures were obtained.
It is important to note that in her defence under notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C, the accused has stated the following defence:
"the cheque in question bears my signature. My husband used to take my blank signed cheques. The cheque in question is one of those cheque. I am not aware about the details of loan which was taken by my husband from the complainant.."
Thus, the accused in the present matter has not disputed 'taking of the loan from the complainant'. It has been stated by her that she does not know the details of the loan taken by her husband from the complainant company which implies that the accused is acknowledging the loan transaction but is unaware of its details.
CC No.631556/2016M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 13 of 18 In the view of the above discussion, this argument that the loan agreement Mark 01(colly) is a fabricated one, could not be sustained.
2. Liability of the accused is not made out by the Complainant.
It is the argument on behalf of the accused that the loan agreement Mark 1(colly) does not mention any term with regard to liability of the guarantor. Further, it is argued that this document does not mention that any punitive action could be taken against the guarantor by the Complainant company.
Perusal of page 6 to 14 of the loan agreement Mark 1(colly) reveals that the loan agreement does not contain any specific clause describing the extent or nature of liability of the guarantor. However, page 5 of the same document which is a guarantor's form mentions an undertaking stating 'I undertake to guarantee the repayment of all the amounts payable by the borrower and the due performance of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as guarantor'.
This guarantor form is a part of the loan agreement and mentions the name of the accused i.e Mrs. Malti Kant as a guarantor. The accused has not disputed her signatures on the said document. Once signatures of the accused as a guarantor are undisputed, the only question remains i.e As the cheque in question had been given by the accused as a guarantor in discharge of the legal liability of the borrower firm i.e M/s Print Solutions. Could the accused be made liable?
In order to decide this question, it is important to discuss the meaning of words 'any debt or other liability' as mentioned in CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 14 of 18 S. 138 of NI Act. The words 'debt' or 'liability' undoubtedly refers to a debt or liability which could be legally enforced. However, the important words which needs interpretation are 'any' and 'other'.
The question which arises here is - Was the intent of the legislature only to include that liability which is owed specifically by the drawer of the cheque in favour of the payee?
Or Did the legislature intend to include within its purview any legal liability of debt which is legally enforceable, whether it was owed by the drawer or any other person/entity in relation to which the drawer intends to pay ?
In the present case, the cheque in question has been drawn by the accused to guarantee a loan taken by the borrower firm i.e M/s Print Solutions. The first and foremost essential ingredient for attracting a liability under Section 138 NI Act is that the person who is to be made liable should be the drawer of the cheque and should have drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him/with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
In Krishna Texport and Capital Markets Ltd. v. Ila A. Agrawal & Ors, (AIR 2015 SC 2091), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
The notice under Section 138 is required to be given to the 'drawer' of the cheque so as to give the drawer an opportunity to CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 15 of 18 make the payment and escape the penal consequences. No other person is contemplated by Section 138 as being entitled to be issued such notice.
In the present case, the Legal Demand Notice has been issued to the accused i.e Mrs. Malti Kant and she was given an opportunity to make good the payment. The procedural requirements of S. 138 NI have been duly met by the Complainant. The objective of sec 138 of NI Act is to promote the efficiency of banking operations and to ensure credibility in transacting business through cheques as has been mentioned in the case of Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249.
What S. 138 is concerned with is that whether the cheque has been issued for 'any debt or other liability' or not. Given the objective, it cannot be restricted that the legislature intended that the debt or liability has to be that of the drawer only.
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.C.D.S. Ltd vs Beena Shabeer & Anr on 12 August, 2002 while discussing the liability of a guarantor under section 138 of NI Act has stated:
"The issue as regards the co-extensive liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor, in our view, is totally out of the purview of Section 138 of the Act, neither the same calls for any discussion therein. The language of the Statute depicts the intent of the law-makers to the effect that wherever there is a default on the part of one in favour of another and in the event a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability there cannot be any restriction or embargo in the matter of application of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act: 'Any cheque' and 'other liability' are the two key expressions which stands as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 16 of 18 the factual context within the ambit of the provisions of the Statute. Any contra interpretation would defeat the intent of the legislature."
Therefore, taking into consideration the above discussion, this court opines that the guarantor's liability is crystallized in the present matter. The cheque was issued by the accused as a guarantor for discharge of liability of another i.e the borrower in this particular matter, which makes the accused legally liable to make good the payment. In addition, the fact that the borrower i.e M/s Print Solutions is a sole proprietorship firm whose sole proprietor at the time of taking of the loan was the accused only, is also an attention worthy fact.
14. It is a settled position that accused has to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 and the standard of proof of which is 'preponderance of probabilities'. It is for the accused to raise a probable defence which creates a doubt on the version of the complainant. The accused, in the present matter has been unsuccessful in creating a doubt on the version of the complainant. The lack of credible evidence/ witnesses on the part of the accused failed to throw even a tint of doubt on the version of the complainant. The complainant on the other hand has been consistent with its version and has successfully proved its case. The case of the complainant is supported by important piece of documents which could not be successfully rebutted by the accused.
CC No.631556/2016M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 17 of 18 CONCLUSION:
15. Hence, this court has come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence brought on record by the complainant that the complainant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, on the other hand, has failed to rebut the presumption which was raised in favour of the complainant.
DECISION:
16. Resultantly, the accused Mrs. Malti Kant is convicted of the alleged offence under section 138 of NI act.
Announced in the open court today on 05.07.2022. This judgment contains 18 pages all are signed by me. A copy of this judgment be placed on the official website of the District Court.
(ADITI RAO) Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (NI Act) South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi CC No.631556/2016 M/s Intec Capital Ltd Vs. Malti Kant Page No. 18 of 18