Delhi District Court
Rajender Batra vs Parmod Kumar Sethi on 13 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TANMAY BATHAM,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT - 03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI
JUDGMENT
Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016
Title of the case Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar
Sethi
Name of the Complainant Rajender Batra
Name of the Accused Parmod Kumar Sethi
Date of Institution 09.07.2015
Date of reserving the Judgment 14.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement 13.04.2026
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 Acquittal
Argued by: Mr. Akshay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Accused.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant Mr. Rajender Batra (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") against the accused, namely Mr. Parmod Kumar Sethi (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). The substance of allegations of the complainant is that he had friendly terms with the accused and was told by him that he has been licensed and runs a Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 1 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:01:01 +0530 Chit Fund company duly authorised by RBI. That relying upon his statement, the complainant became member of different Chit funds started by the accused on different occasions. That the accused then asked the complainant to bid and relying upon the accused the complainant gave Chit Amount to accused with the promise of returning 1.5 times on expiry of the stipulated time period of chits. That upon expiry of the said time period, the complainant requested the accused to return the amount accrued to him, but accused kept postponing. After great pursuance, the accused issued a cheque with following particulars (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheque in question") with the instructions to present only after seeking confirmation from him:
• Cheque bearing no. 319141, for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 and dated 10.04.2015, drawn on Indian Bank, West Patel Nagar Branch, Delhi.
2. That the cheque in question was presented after seeking confirmation from the accused, however it got dishonoured for the reason "Insufficient Funds" vide Returning Memo dated 12.05.2015. That the complainant then issued legal demand notice, dated 25.05.2015, through his counsel through speed post, which was duly received and replied to by the accused with allegedly fake contentions. That the accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount despite due intimation of the legal demand notice and passage of the stipulated time period; hence the present complaint has been filed.
NOTICE U/S 251 CRPC
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was summoned to face trial vide order dated 14.07.2015 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 02.02.2016. In reply Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 2 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:04:51 +0530 to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therein, he denied his signatures on the cheque in question, and also denied filling up its particulars. He admitted knowing the complainant, but denied issuing the cheque in question to him. He stated that he doesn't run any chit fund and has not taken any amount from the complainant regarding the same. He stated that the Cheque in question was lost and he had filed an NCR as well as intimated the bank regarding the same. He admitted receiving the Legal demand notice and replying to the same. He denied having any transaction with complainant or any liability towards the complainant.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, upon oral application of accused under Section 145 (2) NI Act seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant, 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 the case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant himself stepped in the witness box as CW-1 and examined Mr. Mohammad Furquan, Bank Manager, Indian Bank as CW-2; and adopted his pre- summoning evidence in his post-summoning evidence as Ex. CW1/A and relied upon the exhibits therein as Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/6. Complainant and CW-2 were duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and all the exculpatory suggestions put to complainant during the cross-examination by the ld. counsel for the accused were duly denied by him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused reiterated his defence taken in Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 3 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:04:40 +0530 his plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C. As a minor variation, he stated that the doesn't remember if he had received the legal demand notice.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Thereafter, the accused was given an opportunity to lead his defence evidence (hereinafter referred to as "DE"). The accused stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and examined Mr. Gurmit Singh as DW-2. All the inculpatory suggestions put to accused during the cross-examination by the ld. counsel for the complainant were duly denied by him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. The final arguments were heard in the matter and I have heard the ld. counsels appearing for the parties and I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record as well as the written submission.
8. Following arguments have been advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant by way of oral as well as written submissions:-
a) That the CW-2, Bank Witness has verified the signatures of the accused on the cheque in question and as such all the ingredients of the offence as per the mandate of the Section 138 of NI Act are fulfilled in the present case.
b) That the accused is a person of doubtful character and multiple other cases for dishonour of cheques are pending against him.
c) That the NCR about the loss of cheque by the accused is false as it mentions the different amount number than the cheque in question.
d) That the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Umesh Kumar v. Abhay Raj Pandey applies on the accused and does not Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 4 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:04:29 +0530 hinders the rights of the complainant. As such, it is prayed that the accused be convicted for the said offence.
9. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has advanced the following arguments by way of oral as well as written submissions:
a) That there was no transaction between the parties and the cheque in question has been misused.
b) That, in arguendo, since the alleged committee is un-registered as per the Chit Funds Act, 1982, the debt being claimed by the complainant does not fall within the purview of legally enforceable debt. The ld. counsel for the accused has relied on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Umesh Kumar v. Abhay Raj Pandey and Hon'ble High Court of Orrisa in Anupama Biswal v. State of Orissa, contesting that the complainant cannot take benefit of a transaction which does not have a legal sanctity. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
10. It would be appropriate to examine the legal requirements that both parties must meet before delving into the peculiar facts of the present case. The complainant must satisfy the following five essential components to make out the offence under section 138 NI Act: -
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 5 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:04:18 +0530 it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
11. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if all of the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
First And Third Ingredient
12. The proof of first and third ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheque, Ex. CW1/1 which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within the validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/2 due to the reason - "Funds Insufficient". 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 demand notice Ex. CW1/3 and delivery of same through Post by annexing the Postal receipts exhibited as Ex. CW1/4. The accused, at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C has admitted the receiving of legal demand notice and replying to the same. The reply is exhibited on the file as Ex. CW1/5. Therefore, the fourth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 6 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:04:05 +0530
14. 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.
Second Ingredient
15. Now, it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved or not. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the accused in his plea of defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C, his statement of admission and denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has denied being a signatory to the cheque in question and issuing the same. Since the accused has not admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, the presumptions drawn under Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of the NI Act regarding the reversal of the burden of proof on accused will not apply. The burden will lie primarily on the complainant to establish his case and prove the existence of a legally enforceable liability. Whether the complainant has successfully discharged the burden or not has to be seen in the totality of facts and circumstances as appearing on record. The subject matter of the present case and the summary of arguments raised for both sides is being discussed below.
(A) That the cheque book of the accused was lost:
16. The accused has taken a defence that he doesn't run any chit fund and has not taken any amount from the complainant regarding the same. He has stated that the Cheque in question was lost and he had filed an NCR as well as intimated the bank regarding the same. The ld. counsel for the accused has challenged the authenticity and relevance of the said NCR (Ex.DW-1/X1) by pointing out that the said NCR mentions the instance of missing a cheque book Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 7 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:03:54 +0530 of Indian Bank with bank account number 008119350448, whereas the cheque in question was issued from the Indian Bank account number SB424944878. The same was confronted to the accused and he has admitted the same; meaning thereby, it has been admitted that no NCR was ever filed in respect of the cheque book of the cheque in question. In the absence of any strong proof forthcoming, the assertion of the accused regarding loss of cheque book is found to be unreliable, as it is unlikely that any reasonable man would not take any steps after losing their chequebook. Hence, the argument of the accused that the said cheque book was lost from him is rejected for want of substantiation.
(B) That the accused has a bad character due to the existing criminal litigations against him:
17. The accused has maintained that he has no transactions with the complainant and that the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant. The ld. counsel for the accused, in his written submissions, has noted down the list of other cases against the accused to prove his bad character and to accentuate the likelihood of the accused committing the offence in the present case as well. However, it cannot be said that the merely because there are other cases pending/adjudicated against the accused, the presumption of innocence shall not be accorded to the accused in the present case. Reference in this regard can be placed on Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which now corresponds to Section 49 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as reproduced below:
49. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.-- In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person has a bad character, is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.
Explanation 1.--This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.
Explanation 2. --A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.
Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 8 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:03:39 +0530 The defence of the accused has not been reliant upon his purported good character, however, it is based solely upon the alleged factual and legal discrepancies in the version of the complainant. Hence, the mention of the alleged bad character of the accused is not found fit or relevant to be considered for adjudication of the present case and the said argument of the ld. counsel for the accused is hereby rejected.
(C) [In Arguendo] That the claim of the Complainant is not legally enforceable due to lack of compliance of Chit Funds Act:
18. The facts of the complaint show that the nature of transaction between the parties is that of a Chit Fund. Reference in this regards can be made to the Section 2 (b) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982:
(b) "chit" means a transaction whether called chit, chit fund, chitty, kuri [fraternity fund, Rotating Savings and Credit Institution] or by any other name by or under which a person enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money (or a certain quantity of grain instead) by way of periodical instalments over a definite period and that each such subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction of by tender or in such other manner as may be specified in the chit agreement, be entitled to the [net chit amount].
19. The bare reading of the provision mentioned above shows that the facts, as alleged by the complainant, reflect that the accused was allegedly running a circle of chit funds, and the same was allegedly participated into by the complainant. For a liability arising from a chit fund to become a legally enforceable liability, the same has to stand good on the tenets of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Chit Funds Act"). The further reading of the Chit Funds Act shows that the act has been legislated with a specific intent, that is, to regularise the practices being carried out in the name of committees, funds etc. and to bring them within the purview of law, for protection of the participants and to prevent them from arbitrary handling of Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 9 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:03:00 +0530 their money by the foreman or the person entrusted with all the money collected.
20. The Chit Funds Act has been supplemented by the enactment of the Delhi Chit Fund Rules of 2007. A harmonious and cumulative reading of these provisions show that for a chit fund to be legal, valid and enforceable, it must go through certain mandatory requirements, as per the law. The Section 4 of the Chit Funds Act prohibits the commencement or conduct of the chit funds that have not obtained the previous sanction of the State Government alongwith registration with the state government and further Section 5 of the Chit Funds Act prohibits the invitation to public to subscribe any chit fund that has not received the sanction of the State Government in terms of the Section 4 of the Act. Hence, it becomes clear that for any liability, arising out of any chit fund to be legally enforceable, the said Chit Fund must have a valid sanction or the licence in terms of the state laws prevailing in the said jurisdiction, and in the present case, in compliance of the Delhi Chit Fund Rules of 2007. The procedure for registration of the Chit Funds in the NCT of Delhi is mentioned in detail in the Chapter II of the Delhi Chit Fund Rules of 2007. The prescribed Forms for applying to the Registrar of Chit Funds are given in the Appendix I of the Delhi Chit Fund Rules. The legislature has taken dedicated efforts to create a framework in which the prevailing practices of Chit Funds/Committee/Boliwali Commitee/Kitty can be regularised to protect the financial interests of their participants.
21. The accused has maintained a consistent defence that he has had no transactions with the complainant regarding the alleged committee. The ld. counsel for the accused argues that the complainant has not produced any proof of any such amount being invested by him in the alleged chit fund of the accused. He argues that the version of the complainant has Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 10 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:05:12 +0530 failed to stand in its own legs as there in no documentary proof or evidence otherwise, regarding the alleged transactions.
--In Arguendo--
22. In arguendo, it is the case of the accused that the complainant has not proved it on record that the committee under question, if at all existing, was a registered one and had a valid license in terms of the Delhi Chit Fund Rules of 2007, and hence, the complainant cannot get such a Contract enforced through the court decree, which was void ab initio due to the non- compliance of the Section 4 and 5 of the Chit Funds Act. The ld. counsel for the accused points out that the complainant in his complaint has stated that the alleged chit fund was stated to be authorised by the RBI, however, as per the prevailing law on point, the chit funds have to be authorised by the sanction of the State Government.
23. Coming to the evidence of the present case, the ld. counsel for the accused in the cross-examination of complainant has asked him regarding the above-mentioned compliance regarding license of the said chit fund, to which the complainant has stated that he did not verify the license of the accused for dealing in chit funds. The complainant has stated that the accused had a scrap shop and used to run his chit fund circle from there itself. Throughout the trial, no evidence has been brought on record regarding the license of the accused to run a chit fund as per the Section 4 and 5 of the Chit Funds Act. The ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant who alleges to have invested an amount of Rs. 81,00,000/- in the chit funds of the complainant ought to have had the prudence and diligence of verifying the license of the Chit Fund organiser.
Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 11 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:02:39 +0530
24. The ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Umesh Kumar v. Abhay Pratap Pandey (RFA 316/2022 & CM APPL. 35468/2022) to establish the importance of sanction under the Chit Funds Act. Relevant excerpt of the judgment is being reproduced below:
"9. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the business of chit fund cannot be run unless the firm or company is registered with the State Government. During the course of hearing, categorical statement was made by ld. Counsel for appellant that the chit fund business of the respondent was not registered as per law. Thus, it is clear that the transaction between the appellant and the respondent was prohibited by law. Thus, any contract in this regard entered between the appellant and the respondent was void ab initio and the appellant was not entitled to recover the amount as alleged to have been given towards the chit fund."
The above-quoted observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi leaves no scope of doubts that for a Chit Fund to be legally valid and for its participants to be legally entitled to claim its proceeds, it must have a valid sanction of the State Government, which in this case in the Government of NCT Delhi. The complainant has averred in his complaint that the Chit Fund of the accused was stated to have been registered with the RBI. Even if the case of the complainant is believed to be true on the face value, the liability claimed from the accused is not legally enforceable for want of valid sanction from the state government as per the Chit Funds Act.
25. The ld. counsel for the complainant has attempted to resolve this conundrum in his favour by resorting to two major arguments:
Firstly, that the burden of registering a Chit Fund as per the Chit Funds Act was on the accused and the complainant cannot be denied his claim only because the accused has not followed the due process of law.
Secondly, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Shine Varghese Koipurathu v. State of Kerala (SLP [Crl.] No. 14187/2025) and the Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 12 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:02:23 +0530 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of Satish Kumar v. State (Crl. Rev. P. 864/2024) have held that the breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not invalidate the transaction or render the debt unenforceable for the purposes of Section 138 of the NI Act. He argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clarified that such violation merely invites penalty, and does not terms the transaction to be illegal, invalid, or statutorily void, and does not renders the base transaction as unenforceable. The ld. counsel for the accused argues to extend the same logic to the present case, stating that similar to the case of the Income Tax Act, the lack of sanction from the state government, in the present case, as per the Chit Funds Act will not render the whole transaction illegal, and, though it may involve other legal consequences on the participating parties, but the complainant can still claim back his returns and investment out of the alleged Chit Fund.
26. The above-said two arguments of the ld. counsel for the accused are being dealt with below:
(I) The above said arguments of the ld. counsel for the complainant makes it clear that he has acquiesced to the proposition that the alleged chit fund was running without a valid sanction from the state government as per Section 4 and Section 5 of the Chit Funds Act. It also furthers that the complainant participated in the same either with the knowledge of it being illegal or with the ignorance that any such compliance is needed to be made by the chit funds. In the former case, where the complainant is supposed to have a clear notice of the fact that the Chit Fund being run by the accused is not a sanctioned one, his participation in the same, despite having knowledge regarding the lack of sanction, makes him in pari delicato. As the famous latin maxim goes Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria, meaning thereby that no one can benefit from their own wrongs, the Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 13 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:02:00 +0530 complainant cannot be allowed to be benefited from his own wrongs. In the later case, where the complainant was unaware of any such requirement of the sanction as per law, the latin maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat will render him remediless as ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to condone the wrongdoings of complainant.
(II) The judgments relied upon by the ld. counsel for the accused, indeed, establish that if the provision, i.e., Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act is violated, then the penalising Section 271D of the Income Tax Act only prescribes a penalty of an amount equal to that of the said loan and that the liability arising from such a guilty transaction will still be amenable to the provision of the Section 138 of the NI Act. The same principle, however, cannot be extended to the case of violation of provisions of the Chit Funds Act. Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act do not merely prescribe any penalty for running a Chit Fund without obtaining valid sanction, but, they prohibit any such Chit Funds to be commenced with in the first place, without a legal action from the state government. The relevant excerpts of the provision are being reproduced below:
"4. Prohibition of chits not sanctioned or registered under the Act.-- (1) No chit shall be commenced or conducted without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government within whose jurisdiction the chit is to be commenced or conducted or of such officer as may be empowered by that Government in this behalf, and unless the chit is registered in that State in accordance with the provisions of this Act ..."
On one hand where the provision of the Income Tax merely suggest a penalty for its violation, the provisions of the Chit Funds Act completely proscribe the running of a chit fund/kitty/committee etc., without valid a sanction and registration, by striking at its genesis itself. Hence, the judgments of Shine Varghese (supra) and Satish Kumar (supra) will not come to the aid of the Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 14 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:01:50 +0530 accused due to the legal and factual dissimilarities with the present case. Accordingly, the arguments of the ld. counsel for the accused that the interpretation of the quoted judgments shall be extended to present case as well, is rejected.
27. The above discussion makes it clear that the liability, as alleged by the complainant, cannot be called a legally enforceable liability and as such, it will have no place in a complaint related to Section 138 of the NI Act, wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt is an inseparable essential of the offence. Additionally, it is also to be noted that the complainant has not brought on record any evidence or written proof regarding the transactions between the parties to substantiate his case. 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 case, as asserted by the complainant, has fallen short to stand on its own legs for want of legality and substantiation, both. 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. 2,00,000/- towards the complainant on the date of presentation of cheque in question. Therefore, the second ingredient is not fulfilled in the present case.
CONCLUSION
28. To recapitulate, cogent evidence is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction in a criminal trial. The evidence led by the complainant, or the lack of it, have not presented a firm case, convincing enough to convict the accused. As such, the complainant has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the complaint of the Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 15 of 16 Digitally signed TANMAY by TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date: 2026.04.13 16:01:33 +0530 complainant Mr. Rajender Batra is dismissed and the accused Parmod Kumar Sethi 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:
2026.04.13 16:01:14 +0530 Announced in the open court (TANMAY BATHAM) on 13.04.2026. JMFC (NI ACT-03) THC (West), Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signature.
Ct. Cases No. 18554/2016 Rajender Batra v. Parmod Kumar Sethi Page No. 16 of 16