Delhi District Court
In Re: Ombir Singh vs Vinod Kumar on 9 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIDHI BALA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NI ACT
DIGITAL COURT, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,KARKARDOMA COURT, DELHI
IN RE: OMBIR SINGH VERSUS VINOD KUMAR
1. Complaint Case no. : 659/2021
2. Date of Institution of case : 16.09.2021
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ombir Singh
S/o Late. Sh. Jaykwanr
R/o H.No. C-1/50, Ground Floor,
Gali No.1, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094
4. Name of Accused person, : Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Leele@ Leelu Ram
R/o H.No. B-468, B-Block,
Main Market, 1st Pushta,
Sonia Vihar,Delhi-110094
5. Offence complained of : Section 138 NI Act
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : CONVICTED
8. Date of judgment : 09.05.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment the present complaint case for an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the NI Act") is being decided.
2. Factual matrix of the case:-
2.1 It is alleged by the Complainant that accused's sister was married to one Rajpal resident of the native village of complainant and thereby cordial and family relations developed between complainant and accused. In the first week of November 2018, accused requested the complainant for the financial help of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lacs) but complainant expressed his inability to lend such a huge amount but accused kept on CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 1 of 13 Digitally signed NIDHI by NIDHI BALA Date: 2023.05.09 BALA 17:16:52 +0530 insisting and requested the complainant to lend him Rs.5,50,000/-(Five lacs Fifty thousand) at least for the period of two years as accused required money for constructing his property. Thereafter, on the repeted requests of the accused a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/-
(Five lacs Fifty thousand) was lent by complainant to accused in cash on different dates between the periof from 28.11.2018 to 19.04.2019.
2.2. Thereafter, complainant contacted the accused and asked him to return his loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/-(Five lacs Fifty thousand) and in order to discharge his above said liability, accused issued a cheque bearing no. 000012 dated 04.08.2021 for the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Five Lacs Fifty Thousand) drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 in favour of the complainant (hereinafter "the cheque in question") and assured the complainant that the said cheque shall be honoured on its presentation. Accordingly, complainant presented the cheque in question in his bank account being maintained at Indian Bank, Bhajanpura Branch, Delhi-110053 (within the jurisdiction of this court). However the said cheque in question was returned unpaid / dishonored for the reason "Account Closed" vide cheque return memo dated 06.08.2021. Complainant immediately approached the accused and apprised him of the dishonour of cheque in question and asked him to pay in cash but accused flatly refused to pay the same and threatened to face the dire consequences and thereafter accused stopped picking up the calls of complainant.
2.3. On 16.08.2021, Complainant sent a legal demand notice to accused through counsel via speed post and called upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque amount in question within 15 days of receipt of legal notice but accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount despite receiving the notice and therefore, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. On 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 dtd. 21.10.2021 and accused appeared accordingly alongwith his counsel and he was granted bail and on the same day 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. Accused admitted certain facts such as his signatures on the cheque in question, fact of CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 2 of 13 NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI BALA Date: 2023.05.09 BALA 17:17:00 +0530 dishonour of the cheque in question and the fact of receiving the legal demand notice sent by complainant to him through counsel, however, denied its contents and accordingly his statement Under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded. The plea of accused is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"I know the complainant. I used to deposite committee with complainant. The account on the cheque in question was drawn was already closed in the year 2016. I did not take any friendly loan from the complainant. I do not owe any liability to the complainant. I do not know how my blank signed cheque reached to him. I did not give cheque in question. I did not draw the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. I do not want to say anything else. Complainant had visiting terms with us. In the year 2018 I had sold one property to complainant and if i would have had any liability towards the complainant, then he could cleared it at that time. I do not want to say anything else."
4. The accused was then allowed to cross examine the complainant on the appliaction moved on behalf of accused under section 145(2) of NI Act since accused had the plausible defence and the same was consequently done.
5. EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT:
5.1 In Complainant's evidence, the complainant (CW-1) tendered his evidence affidavit in post summoning evidence (as the solitary witness) and relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. CW-1/X : Evidence of complainant by way of affidavit.
ii)Ex. CW-1/A: Original Cheque bearing no. 000012 dated 04.08.2021 for the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Five Lacs Fifty thousand) drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 ( Signatures on the cheque admitted by accused at the time of framing notice as well as his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
iii) Ex. CW-1/B: Original Cheque Return Memo dtd. 06.08.2021 (Admitted by accused at the time of his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
iv) Ex. CW-1/C: Office copy of statutory Legal demand notice dtd. 16.08.2021 sent by Complainant to accused through counsel ( Admitted by accused at the time of framing notice and at the time of his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
Digitally
CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar signed by Page no. 3 of 13
NIDHI
NIDHI BALA
BALA Date:
2023.05.09
17:17:05
+0530
v) Ex. CW-1/D, Ex. CW-1/E and Ex.CW-1/F: Postal receipt, Internet generated tracking report and printout of Whats App ( The fact of receiving the legal demand notice is admitted by accused at the time of his statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.P.C).
6. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, 1973 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and he denied the loan in question having been taken from the complainant and also denied of issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant or handing over the same to him. Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
7. EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED:
7.1. In Defence Evidence, accused got himself examined as DW-1 and he relied only on the bank account statement of his brother marked as Mark A showing some money transfer in the account of complainant through his brother's account qua the committee and further deposed that complainant filed the present false case against him when he demanded his committee amount back from him and denied the loan in question having been taken from the complainant. He further deposed that complainant took the cheque from his home. 7.2. Accused got examined another witness on his behalf Sh. Manoj as DW-2 who is his real brother and the said witness did not rely on any document. He deposed that he was the mmeber in the committee run by the complainant and paid his share money accordingly , however, complainant filed the present false case against his brother when he demanded his share money back after the completion of its tenure. He further deposed that complainant took the cheques from their shop.
7.3. Both the defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 were cross examined on behalf of the complainant.
8. Final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of Complainant as well as accused. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the accused, however, no written submissions were filed on behalf of complainant despite giving opportunity for the same.
Complete record has been perused carefully.
Digitally signedNIDHI by NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 17:17:09 2023.05.09 +0530 CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 4 of 13
9. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
9.1. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and the evidence affidavit of the complainant and further argued that the friendly relations between the complainant and accsued are admitted by the accused and accused has further admitted his signatures upon the cheque in question and has vaguely denied the liability towards the complainant. He further argued that statutory legal demand notice sent by complainant to accused is also admitted. Ld. Counsel further argued that once the signatures on the cheque in question is admitted by the accused then Section 118 and 139 of NI Act clearly arise in the favour of the complainant and accused has the reverse onus to prove otherwise. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused has lead a false evidence through the deposition of himself as DW-1 and DW-2 who is his real brother which is false and concocted story and a bundle of lie. Ld. Counsel further argued that the deposition of accused as DW-1 and DW-2 are not credible since there are apparent contradictions in their testimonies since accused himself deposed that he was the member in the committee run by the complainant wherein he deposited his share of money through the account of his brother and complainant did not return the said amount back to him despite demand after the completion of its tenure rather he filed the present false case against him. On the other hand brother of accused DW-2 deposed that he was the member of the committee and paid the sahre money for himself and complainant did not return his deposited amount. Ld. Counsel further argued that both the witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 have miserably failed to prove that complainant was running any committee wherein either accused DW-1 or his brother DW-2 was the member. Ld. Counsel further argued that accsued has created the false defence of cheque in question being stolen by the complainant since again there is material contradiction in the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 in this regard as DW-1 deposed that complainant took the cheque from his home, however, DW-2 deposed that complainant took the cheque from their shop. Further both the defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 have miserably failed to prove this fact of cheque being stolen. Ld. Counsel further argued that admittedly neither DW-1 nor DW-2 gave any police complaint against the complainant when they came to know that complainant allegedly took the cheque in question.Ld. Counsel further argued that the deposition of DW-1 and DW-2 is an afterthought story Digitally signed by NIDHI CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar NIDHI BALA Page no. 5 of 13 BALA Date:
2023.05.09 17:17:14 +0530 falsely created by the accused in order to avoid his liability towards the complainant. Ld. Consel for complainant further argued that the complainant has been able to prove all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused and accused has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to prove his plea of defence. The Complainant has thus prayed for conviction of the accused for the offence u/s 138 of NI Act.
10. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
10.1. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that accused did not take the alleged loan from complainant and further accused did not even give the cheque in question to the complainant. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused has successfully rebutted the presumption of law in favour of the complainant, if any since DW-2 deposed before the court that cheque in question signed in blank was taken away by the complianant from their shop where complainant used to visit. Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant used to run a committee and accused was a member in the committee and despite depositing the complete share money of Rs. 2,25,000/-(Two lacs Twenty five thousand) for the tenure of 15 months through the account of his brother Manoj/DW-2, complainant did not return his money and filed the present case falsely against the accused when he demanded his money from the complainant. Ld. Counsel further argued that cheque in question is a stolen cheque and the same is drawn on the bank account of accsued which is closed since 2016 and unfortunately some blank cheques were lying in the shop of the accused nad one of the cheque i.e. cheque in question was taken/stolen from the shop/house of accused and the accused was fully unaware about his stolen/taken cheque. ld. Counsel further argued that complainant gave all the alleged money to accused in cash after withdrawing the same from his account, however, there is no witness to this fact. ld. Counsel further argued that accused was on his job on the alleged dates of giving money to him by the complainant and there is no telephonic conversation between the two during this period. Ld. Counsel further argued that complainant forged the signatures of accused on the stolen cheque. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused does not have any liability towards the complainant.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.05.09
17:17:18
+0530
CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 6 of 13
11. Now, the foremost provision of law to settle the entire dispute/controversy between the parties herein is Sec. 138 of NI Act and the same is being reproduced hereinafter for the ready reference:-
"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 provision 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 unless--
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months 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 of other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
11.1. The essential ingredients in order to attract Sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881 are as following:
i) The cheque for an amount is issued by the drawer to the payee/complainant on a bank account being maintained by him.
ii) The said cheque is issued for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or liability.
iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid on account of insufficient amount to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
iv) The cheque is presented within 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.
v) within 30 days a legal demand notice is issued by the payee or the holder in due course to the drawer of the cheque on receipt of Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI Date:
BALA BALA 2023.05.09 17:17:22 +0530 CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 7 of 13 information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque.
vi) The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of the money as demanded in the legal demand notice to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the reciept of said notice.
vii) The debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is legally enforceable.
12. Now, coming to the facts of the present complaint case keeping in view the essential ingredients of section 138 of NI Act.
12.1. In this case, it is not disputed and duly admitted by the accused that the cheque in question bears his signatures and belongs to him. Therefore, the essential ingredient (i) as discussed in the preceding paragraph stands fulfilled. Accused has further admitted the fact of dishonour of the cheque in question, hence, another essential ingredients (iii) and (iv) also stand proved by the complainant. Accused has further admitted the fact of receiving the legal demand notice sent to him by complainant, hence, essential ingredients (v) and (vi) also stand proved.
13. Now coming to the last and the remaining core ingredients (ii) and (vii) of Section 138 of NI Act as discussed in preceding Para 11.1 and the real issue of controversy herein i.e. whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of any debt or liability, whole or in part and whether the same is a legally enforceable debt. Now in the present case accused has duly admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but denied having filled the other particulars of the cheque. However, the said proposition has been duly observed and settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh versus Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC
197. The relevant paras are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
"36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Digitally Page no. 8 of 13 signed by NIDHI NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.05.09
17:17:28
+0530
duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
Further reiterated in Triyambak S Hedge vs Sripad (2021) SCC Online SC 788. Therefore Section 139 of the NI Act is germane to this and according to Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed 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. In the case in hand, accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, thereby attracting the initial presumption of section 139 of NI Act in favour of the complainant which is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
139. Presumption in favour of holder.- 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.
13.1. It is settled law now that once accused/drawer of the cheque admits his/her signatures on the cheque then the presumption of law as provided in Section 139 of NI Act has to be raised in favour of the holder of the cheque and it is explicit in the said provision that the said presumption shall remain untill contrary is proved. In K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr, (1999) 7 SCC 510, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:
"9. As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption..."
Further in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable in Digitally CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar signed by NIDHI Page no. 9 of 13 NIDHI BALA BALA Date:
2023.05.09 17:17:33 +0530 nature and for rebuttal of the same accused need not even step into the witness box as he can rebut the same by placing reliance on the material brought on record by the complainant. It is also a well settled legal position that the presumptions can be rebutted even by raising presumptions of fact and law on the basis of material available on record. It is further well settled that the standard required from the accused to prove his defence is preponderance of probabilities and accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts. Again in Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categoracally held as under:-
"10. The complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption. Before we refer to judgments of this Court considering Section 118 and 139, it is relevant to notice the general principles pertaining to burden of proof on an accused especially in a case where some statutory presumption regarding guilt of the accused has to be drawn."
13.2. Needless to mention herein that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque. In the present case, since the accused has admitted his signatures on cheque in question, there arises an initial presumption in terms of Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act not only regarding existence of legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant but also regarding issuance of cheque in question by the accused in favour of complainant in discharge of his aforesaid liability. Now, whether or not the accused has been able to rebut the said presumption is a question of fact which needs to be decided after appreciation of entire evidence led on behalf of both the parties in the light of guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned herein above and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
13.3. The primary issue in the case in hand is to determine whether the accused has succeeded in discharging his burden, that whether he has successfully raised a probable defence in order to create a reasonable doubt in the case of complainant to discard the presumption of law in favour of complainant.
Digitally
signed by
CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar NIDHI
NIDHI
BALA
Page no. 10 of 13
BALA Date:
2023.05.09
17:17:38
+0530
13.4. The accused has chosen to examine himself as a witness/DW-1 and also examined a witness DW-2 on his behalf i.e. his brother Manoj, so, now it is to be seen in the light of cross-examination of the complainant as well as defence evidence lead by the accused, whether he is successful in dislodging the case of the complainant by bringing on record such facts/material/circumstances which could result the testimony/evidence of complainant into disbelief. In the present case,the accused has tried to rebut the presumptions u/s. 118(a) and 139 NI Act on the ground that he did not give the cheque in question to complainant to discharge any liability and the cheque in question is a stolen cheque and he did not take the alleged loan from the complainant. DW-2 Manoj deposed on behlf of the accused that he was one of the member in the committee run by the complaainant and he paid his share money for 15 months and complainant did not return his amount on demand. He further deposed that complainant took away the cheque in question from their shop as the cheque book was lying at the shop having some blank signed cheques. On the other hand accused DW-1 deposed that he was the member of the committee run by the complainant and despite payment of the entire share money of Rs. 2,25,000/-(Two lacs Twenty five thousand) for the period of 15 months complainant did not return the amount and stole/took away his cheque from his house. There is apparent contradiction in the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 w.r.t the place from where cheque in question was allegedly stolen by the complainant and admittedly no police complaint was made either by DW-1 or DW-2 qua the cheque being stolen by the complainant and the reason as to why the complaint was not made is best known to DW-1 and DW-2 as they both did not disclose the same. The testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 do not inspire confidence and seems unreliable as the same does not disprove the testimony of complainant nor create any dent in the same.DW-1 and DW-2 simply say that complainant took the cheque in question which belonged to the accused/DW-1 without any explainantion as to when and how. Accsued who got himself examined as a witness DW-1 has only reiterated his plea of defence taken at the time of framing of notice. During the course of arguments, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the signatures on the cheque in question is forged by the complainant. However, interestingly it is not deposed either by DW-1 or by DW-2. Rather signatures on the cheque in question is admitted by the accused.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI BALA
BALA Date:
CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar 2023.05.09
17:17:42
Page no. 11 of 13
+0530
13.5. During the cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for accused, testimony of complainant has remained intact, however, on the other hand testimony of accused as DW-1 and his witness DW-2 seems unreliable and do not inspire confidence and thereby accused has miserably failed to prove his defence.
13.6. Again, the accused is only supposed to discharge his onus not beyound the reasonable doubt but on the principle of preponderance of probabilities which is again a settled position of law and it has been reitereted again and again through the precedents that the said appreciation depends upon the facts and circumstance of each and every case and no air tight formula can be adopted in order to ascertain as to whether accused has been successful in dislodging the tesitomy of complainant before the court. On the aspects of preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another 2019) 18 SCC 106 and in various other rulings have time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Further, it has been held in Rajesh Agarwal v. State, 2010 SCC online Del 2501 that:-
"9. .....There is no presumption that even if an accused fails to bring out his defence, he is still to be considered innocent. If an accused has a defence against dishonour of the cheque in question, it is he alone who knows the defence and responsibility of spelling out this defence to the court and then proving this defences is on the accused....."
However, in the present case accused has merely denied the liability and failed to prove the same either by rebutting the testimony of complainant through his cross examination which led this court to believe that the non-exixtence of the consideration for which cheque in question is allegedly issued to complainant by accused, is so probable that any prudent man would consider the same in the facts and circumstances similar to the case in hand or by leading any cogent and believable evidence.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI BALA
BALA Date:
CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar 2023.05.09
17:17:46 Page no. 12 of 13
+0530
14. In the present case in hand, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the settled position of law in this regard, the presumption of law as per section 118(a) and section 139 of NI Act clearly come in favour of the complainant and his burden of proving the fact of issuance of cheque in question in discharge of legally enforceable debt stands discharged and the accused has miserably failed to dischrge his reverse onus. In the light of the foregoing discussions, this court is of the opinion that the accused has not led any cogent evidence to rebut presumptions under Sec. 118 and 139 of NI Act. There is nothing coming out during the trial which would probablise the defence raised by the accused or falsify the case of the complainant.
15. In the above view, the complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability. This Court has considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant has proved his case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the accused is, thus, held guilty and stands convicted for the said offence.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI Date:
BALA BALA 17:17:50 2023.05.09 +0530 Announced in Open Court (NIDHI BALA) today on 09.05.2023 MM (NI Act) Digital Court, NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.Digitally signed
NIDHI by NIDHI BALA Date:
BALA 2023.05.09 17:17:54 +0530 (NIDHI BALA) MM (NI Act) Digital Court, NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA/09.05.2023 CC No. 659/2021 Ombir Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 13 of 13