Delhi District Court
Sai Travelove vs Spicevacations Travel on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TANMAY BATHAM,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT - 03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI
JUDGMENT
Complaint Case No. 9135/2019
Title of the case Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel
Name of the Complainant Sai Travelove through its Proprietor Ms.
Pooja Jethi
Name of the Accused Spicevacations Travel through its Autho-
rised Signatory Mr. Harjeet Singh Sodhi
Date of Institution 03.12.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment 06.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026
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 Acquitted
Argued by: Mr. Rahul Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Pradeep Murria, Ld. Counsel for the Accused.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant Sai Travelove through its Proprietor Ms. Pooja Jethi (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") against the accused Spicevacations Travel through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Harjeet Singh Sodhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:18:53 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). The substance of the allegations of the complainant is that the complainant approached the accused for booking tickets for hotels and flights for complainant's clients. That according to the ledger maintained by the complainant, a credit of Rs. 1,44,110/- was due against the accused and the accused, in discharge of his legal obligation to pay the above mentioned dues, issued the following cheques (hereinafter referred to as the "cheques in question") and assured that the same would be honoured upon presentation:
Srl. No. Cheques Number Date of Cheques Amount
1 0000 38 19.09.2019 30,000/-
2 0000 39 19.09.2019 30,000/-
3 0000 40 18.09.2019 30,000/-
4 0000 41 18.09.2019 30,000/-
5 0000 42 18.09.2019 24,000/-
All drawn on RBL Bank Ltd., Gurgaon Branch, ABW Towers, IFFCO Chowk, Gurgaon - 122001.
2. That, as instructed by the accused, the complainant presented the cheques in question at her bank. Upon presentation, Cheque no. 000038 got dishonoured vide return memo dated 24.09.2019, Cheque no. 000039 got dishonoured vide return memo dated 20.09.2019, Cheque no. 000040 got dishonoured vide return memo dated 05.10.2019, Cheque no. 000041 got dishonoured vide return memo dated 01.10.2019, all for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and Cheque no. 000042 got dishonoured vide return memo dated 27.09.2019 for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer. That the complainant informed the same to accused and got dilatory responses. That the accused has acknowledged his liability time and again in the email and WhatsApp correspondence. That the complainant then issued legal demand notice dated Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:18:44 +0530 17.10.2019, upon the accused, sent through speed post on 20.10.2019 which was delivered to the accused at one of the addresses available with the complainant.
That despite the delivery of notice and passage of stipulated time period, the accused did not honour his legal liability, hence, the present complaint has been filed.
NOTICE U/S 251 CRPC
3. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was summoned to face trial vide order dated 06.12.2019 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 27.07.2022. In reply to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He admitted singing the cheque in question but denied filling other details. He further stated that he had not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. He stated that he's doing business with the complainant on regular basis. He said that he is not engaged in day-to-day business and that his accountant who was aware of the transaction with the complainant as now passed away. He denied knowing anything about the transaction with the complaint and also denied having any liability regarding it. Lastly, he stated that his accountant has issued the cheques in question to the complaint.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, an oral 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 her case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant herself stepped in the witness box as CW-1 and tendered her Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:18:34 +0530 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/1 and relied on following documents:
No. Title of the Document Exhibited As
1 Ledger Account Ex. CW1/A
2 Original cheques in question Ex. CW1/B to Ex. CW1/F
3 Original return memos Ex. CW1/G to Ex. CW1/K
4 Copy of Emails Ex. CW1/L
5 Copy of the WhatsApp images and Ex. CW1/M
screenshots
Legal demand notice Ex. CW1/N
Original postal receipts Ex. CW1/O
Tracking Report Ex. CW1/P
Certificate under Section 65B of Ex. CW1/Q
Indian Evidence Act
Complainant was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and all the exculpatory suggestions put to complainant were duly denied by her.
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 again admitted his signature on the cheques. However, denied filling other details therein. He also denied receiving the legal demand notice. The accused stated that complaining was putting a lot of pressure upon him by creating ruckus in front of other clients and employees and that she also provided deficient services to his client, Raman Gupta. Further stated that company shouted upon his accountant, and thereafter Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:18:24 +0530 his accountant, on his instructions, gave cheques to the complainant in good faith. Further stated that the complainant had booked 4 tickets from him, which was cancelled on account of non-payment by the complainant for which he suffered a loss of Rs. 40,000/-. He alleged that the complainant has misused the cheques in question and denied having any liability towards the complainant.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Thereafter, the accused was given an opportunity to lead his defence evidence, and he led his DE whereby he examined himself as DW-1, Mr. Dharmesh as DW-2, who was later dropped and Ms. Ritu Gupta as DW-3.
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.
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 not been able to prove any quantifiable loss suffered due to the acts of the complainant, which reduces his liability; and that there was no duress the when the accused gave the Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:18:14 +0530 cheques in question to the complainant.
c) That the accused should've approached the consumer court if any commercial dispute was there. 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 accused was never served with a legal demand notice as it was sent on the old addresses.
b) That there were multiple transactions between the complainant and the accused, and there was deficiency in service of the complainant given to one Mr. Raman Gupta, due to which the complainant becomes liable for a certain amount which reduces the liability of the accused.
c) That the cheques in question were taken by the complainant under duress and by showing pressure of police and FIRs.
d) That the complainant has admitted raising bills in excess of the legally enforceable liability of the accused.
e) That there are multiple contradictions in the version of the complainant and that it doesn't follow a logical coherence. 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: -
Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:18:04 +0530 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 cheques, Ex. CW1/B to Ex. CW1/F which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheques in question was presented within the validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/G to Ex. CW1/K due to the reason i.e., "Funds Insufficient" and "Payment stopped by 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/N and effective delivery of same through postal receipts Ex. CW1/O and the tracking report Ex. CW1/P. The ld. counsel Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:17:55 +0530 for the accused has objected to the exhibition of the legal demand notice (Ex. CW1/N) on the ground that the same is a photocopy and the complainant has not adduced the original one. It goes without saying that the original legal demand notice was sent by the complainant to the accused and what was left with the complainant was only the photocopy of the original, which she has duly annexed in the complaint. The complainant had answered in response to the objection of the ld. counsel for the accused that she can produce the original on the NDOH, however, no further enquiries were made by the ld. counsel for the accused in this point. It's an established principle of law, as emanating from the Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that, when the original document is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, secondary evidence relating to such document may be given. Hence, considering the totality of above fact scenario, the objection of the ld. counsel for the accused regarding the legal demand notice on judicial file being only a photocopy is hereby rejected.
14. The accused has stated that he has not received any legal demand notice. The ld. counsel for the accused has suggested in the cross-examination of the complainant that he had deliberately sent the legal demand notice on the address that has been vacated by the accused six years ago. No evidence has been led on trial whatsoever, to prove that the accused has left the said address. Be that as it may, the ld. counsel for the accused has admitted that the accused once used to reside at that address. Hence, it could be concluded that the legal demand notice was sent on the correct address of the accused.
15. 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 Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:17:45 +0530 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 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".
Therefore, the argument that the accused did not receive the legal demand notice will not hold much strength in the light of the admission of the accused regarding his address. Further, it is to be noted that the accused has not brought any evidence on record to show that the legal demand notice was, in fact, not served on him. Accordingly, the argument of accused that he did not receive the legal demand notice is rejected. Therefore, the fourth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
16. The fact that the payment 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.
Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 9 of 17
Digitally signed
by TANMAY
TANMAY BATHAM
BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25
17:17:28 +0530
Second Ingredient
17. 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 cheques 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 blank signed cheque in question. Under the NI Act, once the accused admits his signatures 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.
18. 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.
Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:17:17 +0530 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 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 the complainant. The contentions raised by the accused are being discussed below.
CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION (A) That the accused has issued the cheques in question under duress:
19. It is the case of the accused that the cheques in question were given by him under the duress of the complainant who had threatened him of FIRs and had also caused ruckus in his office by barging in and fighting in front of his employees. The accused has examined his employee Ritu Gupta in his favour and has pointed out page 74 of the Ex. CW1/DX whereby the complainant has stated that she is going to come with a police office namely Anjana. The complainant has denied putting any pressure on the accused.
20. A considerate and thorough perusal of the evidence on record shows that the accused has not been able to conclusively prove that the cheque Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:17:06 +0530 in question was given under any kind of duress. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that he had given the cheques in question to the complainant when she was shouting angrily in his office and that the same was issued in good faith. It is an admitted fact between the parties that they have number of transactions between them. Nothing concrete has been brought on record, which indicates that the accused, who has had a fair amount of dealing with the complainant, was put into pressure to give the cheques in question. Notably, the cheques were given in the office of the accuse himself where the accused was in a comfortable territory surrounded by his own employees. It becomes unlikely to be true that the complainant can force the accused to give cheques to her in his own office, all by herself, merely by shouting.
21. As to the assertion regarding duress from the police and the threat of FIRs, it is expected out of a reasonable man to be aware of his rights and to not be threatened by the name of police agencies, if he has not done something wrong. If the defence that the accused got threatened by the name of the police is to be accepted, then that will also insinuate that the the accused had done something wrong of which he was apprehensive about. The accused is a mature adult who is expected to hold his ground firmly and the assertion that a mere mention of police agency threatened him to write a cheque which he did not intend to write, is found to be improbable and unreliable. The argument of the ld. counsel for the accused that the cheques in question were issued under the duress is here by rejected.
(B) That the complainant has caused loss to the accused, which reduced his legally enforceable liability:
22. The ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the cheques in question have been wrongly presented by the complainant for the said amount whereas the actual liability of the accused is much lesser. It is the case of the Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:16:56 +0530 accused that they have running transactions with the complainant whereby they frequently contact each other for travel arrangements for their clients on mutual basis. The accused asserts that the complainant has given deficient service to one of his clients, namely Mr. Raman Gupta and has caused a loss to him, as the complainant failed to pay the amount of flight tickets to him on time due to which the same got cancelled and the loss had to be borne by the accused. Per contra, the complainant has maintained that there were no adjustment pending between the accused and the complainant, and that the cheques in question have been issued in discharge of the existing legal liability of the accused only.
23. At the very outset, it will be helpful to keep in mind that the parties at trial are travel agencies who engage each other for their services on a regular basis. At the stage of final arguments, the accused has even accepted having certain liabilities towards the complainant but has refuted owing the cheque amount to the complainant. Since a lot of affairs are pending between the parties, much has been said and argued on the trial as well, though not all of it is relevant for the disposal of this complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act. A voluminous call transcript and multiple e-mails have been adduced as evidence in the trial. The court has remained cognisant of the essentials of the offence u/s 138 NI Act, and has kept the scrutiny limited and precise to the cause of action only. For the sake of brevity, the court has refrained from discussing each and every evidence appearing on record, and only the facts found otherwise to be relevant to the present case are being discussed below.
24. The ld. counsel for the accused has suggested to the complainant at his cross-examination that for the bookings of the tickets of one Mr. Raj Kumar and his family, he has only paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and not the actual price of the the tickets which was Rs. 92,000/-. The complainant admitted adjusting the remaining amount with the North-East package booked Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:14:30 +0530 earlier. It is the claim of the accused that he suffered a loss of Rs. 35,000 due to the full payment of flight tickets not being made by the complainant. The complainant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the entry at point AX in Mark A, whereby amount of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 have been deducted from the account of the accused, affirming the version of the accused. The complainant has later stated that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given to him as a loan. This new addition in the version of the complainant comes as a stark contradiction to his otherwise story, Further, the complainant has also not been able to show any proof that the said amount was a loan to the accused. The ld. counsel for the accused argues that it is improbable and unbelievable that the complainant will give a loan to the accused, as they were working on regular basis, and that the said some was towards the part payment of the tickets only. Later, in his cross-examination dated 16.01.2023, the complainant again goes back on his words and admits that the said amount of Rs. 20,000 was given towards the advance payment only. This admission of the complainant has provided credibility to the version of the accused that the complainant had only made a payment of part amount for the flight tickets and defaulted on the remaining amount.
25. The complainant has further admitted in his cross-examination dated 16.01.2023 that he has paid the balance amount of the flight tickets to the accused. It comes out as an imprudent and unlikely on the part of the complainant that she will have no proof whatsoever of a payment to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- to the accused. This absence of any proof of the said payment points towards the likelihood that no such payment was ever made to the accused, by the complainant. The accused has consistently asserted that he suffered loss due to default of the complainant and the complainant is yet to mitigate that loss to him. On the other hand, the version of the complainant has Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:33 +0530 appeared to be inconsistent and has gone into substantial variations throughout the trial.
26. Notably, what shakes the case of the complainant to its core is an admission of the complainant in her cross-examination dated 12.10.2022, wherein she has admitted raising excess amount in her bills from the accused than his liability. The relevant part of the cross-examination is being reproduced below :
"At this stage, attention of witness is shown to the list of documents Ex. CW-1/DX at page No. 15 at point A & B, 16 at point C & D where it is shown that the complainant has charged 5% GST from the accused.
After seeing the same, the witness replies that she has never paid any GST to any government agency. It is correct that I have raised excess amount in my bill from the accused than his actual liability. (Vol., I have not paid the GST). The same is my reply with respect to the entry at point E on page No. 25 on Ex. CW-1/DX."
The perusal of the Ex. CW1/DX does not conclusively shows as to which customer is the subject matter of the travel plans being discussed in the above mentioned excerpt, however, the admission of the complainant speaks for itself that she has raised bills in excess of the legal liability of the accused. In that case, the ledger of the complainant comes under question and it becomes probable that the complainant has quoted the existing legal liability of the accused wrongly. The ld. counsel for the complainant was asked clarify on this point at the stage of final arguments, however, he could only reply in a platitudinous manner that the said statement is in reference to another cheque. Notwithstanding any other cheque, the fact stands established that the complainant has billed the accused for an amount more than his actual legal liability as well. In the light of the discussion above, it can be said that the version of the complainant has lost its credibility and the accused has been able to raise a probable defence as an alternate version, vis-à-vis the version of the complainant. Hence, the argument of the ld. counsel for the accused that the Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:23 +0530 complainant has presented cheques of excessive amount, without adjusting the amount of loss caused to the accused due to his default is hereby accepted.
27. This court is of the opinion that the accused has brought on record facts and circumstances to disprove the claim of the complainant, and the same, as discussed in above paragraphs, have been established by the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant 2022 6 SCC 735, has held that accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. What is expected from accused is to establish a probable defence and whether the same has been raised, has to be decided on the conspectus of the existing evidence in a particular case. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion is that the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence that there was no legally enforceable debt of Rs. 1,44,000/- towards the complainant on the date of presentation of cheques in question. Therefore, the second ingredient is not fulfilled in the present case.
CONCLUSION
28. To recapitulate the above discussion, the accused has been successful in establishing a probable defence on a standard of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act by establishing that he does not owe a legally enforceable liability towards the complainant. Cogent evidence is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction in a criminal trial. The accused has been successful in establishing a probable defence from the evidence of the complainant and the circumstances of the case that there was no legal liability of Rs. 1,44,000/-.
29. As such, the complainant has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has been able to raise a probable defence. Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:08 +0530 Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed and the accused Harjeet Singh Sodhi is hereby acquitted of the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Digitally signed by TANMAY ORDER: ACQUITTAL TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:55 +0530 Announced in the open court (TANMAY BATHAM) on 25.03.2026. JMFC (NI ACT-03) THC (West), Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature.
Ct. Case No. 9135/2019 Sai Travelove v. Spicevacations Travel Page No. 17 of 17