Delhi District Court
Sharad Yadav vs Nisha 1/17 on 10 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Criminal Complaint No.:2925/2019
CNR No DLSW020038922019
Sharad Yadav ......... Complainant
Versus
Nisha ......... Accused
1. Name & address of the complainant: Sharad Yadav, S/o
Late Sh. R.S. Yadav,
R/o R-98B, Chanakya
Place Part-2, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi-59
2. Name & address of the accused : Nisha
W/o Dharamvir,
r/o Plot No. 51, Q Extn.
Flat No. 202, First Floor
Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi-110059
3. Offence complained of : U/S 138, The
Negotiable Instruments
Act,1881.
4. Date of Institution of case : 23.01.2019
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of decision of the case : 05.04.2023
Digitally signed
Abhinav by Abhinav
Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10
16:40:27 +0530
CC no.2925/2019
Sharad Yadav vs Nisha 1/17
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case as filed by the complainant, Sharad Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against accused, Nisha, (hereinafter referred to as the accused). The present complaint has been filed against the accused u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. The brief facts as alleged by the complainant in the complaint are that complainant and accused were known to each other as a tenant and landlord and the accused had approached the complainant in January 2018 for taking on rent complainant's house for her business. The accused had promised the complainant that she will pay the monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The complainant had agreed to give his house on rent to the accused and accordingly they signed a rent agreement. Further, the accused had only paid the first month's rent to the complainant, and after that accused neither paid any rent to the complainant nor picked up the call of the complainant. The complainant thereafter had visited the accused several times, requesting the payment of the remaining rent amount of Rs. 80,000/- including the water & electricity bills of the rented house, and the accused had promised to make the payment of all balance payments of rent, water and electricity bills to the complainant. That in the month of September 2018, the accused had filed a false complaint against the complainant at Dabri police station and when the complainant reached the Police Station, accused accepted her legal liability of 8 months rent including water and electricity bills, and issued a cheque bearing no. 727560 of Rs. 45,000/-, dated 10.12.2018 drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha 2/17 Abhinav Digitally signed by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:40:53 +0530 complainant (cheque in question). That accused had further given undertaking and promise to the complainant regarding the payment of remaining balance rent and bill amount to be paid as soon as her business would start working well and further requested the complainant to present the above-mentioned cheque on or before 12.12.2018.
3. Based upon the aforesaid cheque of the accused, when the complainant presented the cheque to his banker i.e., Yes Bank, Branch C-3, Janakpuri Delhi and the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant vide cheque returning memo dated 17.12.2018 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
4. Thereafter, finding no other way out, the complainant served a Legal Demand Notice dated 26.12.2018 upon the accused through speed post asking accused to repay the loan amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint case with the submission that accused person be summoned, tried and punished according to law.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant in the pre-summoning evidence, examined himself as CW1 by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied upon following documents which are as follows:
a) Cheque in question Ex. CW1/A.
b) Cheque returning memo Ex. CW1/B.
c) Legal Notice Ex. CW1/C.
d) Postal receipt, tracking report & returned envelope Ex.
CW1/D(colly)
e) Rent Agreement Ex. CW1/E (OSR)
CC no.2925/2019
Sharad Yadav vs Nisha 3/17
Digitally signed
Abhinav by Abhinav
Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10
16:41:05 +0530
6. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence and upon finding prima facie case against the accused, the accused was summoned for an offence punishable under section 138 NI Act. Thereafter Notice u/s 251 Cr. PC was framed against the accused on 23.09.2019 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused took the plea that she had started a business of garments from the rented premises of the complainant and the said business could not go well and for the same reason, she could not pay the rent. Accused further stated that due to the non-payment of the rent, complainant had taken custody of all her equipment and belongings from the rented premises and thereafter, she made a police complaint against the complainant, upon which complainant returned all the equipment and she had issued the cheque in question to the complainant.
Accused admitted her signature on the cheque but denied filling the other particulars on the cheque. Accused further stated that she had did not receive the legal demand notice from the complainant.
7. Thereafter, an oral application was moved by the counsel for accused u/s 145(2) NI Act for allowing the cross examination of the complainant, however the same was disallowed on 30.01.2020 as no plausible grounds of defense were raised by the accused for allowing the right to cross-examine the complainant and accordingly, matter was listed for recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC.
8. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC on 27.02.2020, wherein all the incriminating circumstances which were against the accused were put to her. Accused further stated that she had deposited rent to the complainant for the initial two months but thereafter due to loss in business, she failed to pay the rent for the CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 4/17 Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:42:50 +0530 next three months upon which complainant locked the premises. That when she one day checked her rented premises, she noticed all her belongings were not present at the said place, on which she approached the police for appropriate actions against the owner/ landlord. Police called both complainant and her at PS Dabri and thereafter, under pressure of the return of belongings, she issued the cheque in question for an amount of Rs. 45,000/- and handed the cheque to the complainant. Accused further admitted her signature on the cheque and also admitted filling in the other particulars on the cheque. Accused further denied receiving the legal demand notice from the complainant.
9. Thereafter matter was listed for DE. Despite various opportunities given to the accused, accused failed to file any application u/s 315 Cr.PC. and accordingly, the right of the accused to lead DE was closed vide order dated 26.02.2022. Thereafter, accused failed to appear and process u/s 82 Cr.PC. was issued against the accused, which was duly executed and accused was declared absconder vide order dated 06.01.2023. Thereafter, on 04.02.2023, accused appeared and furnished her fresh address and requested for some more time for leading final arguments.
10.The submissions made by counsel for complainant and accused were heard and the record of the case thoroughly perused.
11.Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic provision of Section 138 of NI Act,1881. In order to ascertain whether accused has committed offence u/s 138 NI Act the following ingredients have to be proved which are as follows:
CC no.2925/2019 Digitally signed
Sharad Yadav vs Nisha by Abhinav 5/17
Abhinav Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date:
2023.04.10
16:42:56 +0530
a) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability;
b) cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
c) That cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the 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 the bank;
d) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
e) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
12. It becomes imperative to mention that Section 139 of NI Act provides a statutory presumption in favour of the drawee that the cheque was issued to him in discharge of a debt or other liability of a legally enforceable nature. Also, the said provision must be read along with Section 118 of NI Act which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been drawn and accepted for consideration. That said, what follows is that trial under section 138 NI Act is structured on the premise of the reverse onus of proof theory since the offence is a document based technical one. The journey of evidence begins not from the home of the prosecution story but from the point of the defence. The presumptions carved out in favour of the complainant are those of law and not those of facts.
CC no.2925/2019Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed
6/17
Abhinav by Abhinav
Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10
16:43:04 +0530
13. In this regard, reliance can be placed on K. N. Beena v.
Muniyappan (AIR 2001 SC 2895), it was observed as follows: -
"Thus, in complaints under Section 138, the Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused. This Court in the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16 has also taken an identical view."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (AIR 2001 SC 3897), observed as follows:
"Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, (AIR 1958 SC 61), it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused (ibid)."
Also, in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 309], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the NI 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 the discharge of any debt or liability."
14. Further, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities".
CC no.2925/2019
Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 7/17
Abhinav by Abhinav
Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10
16:43:14 +0530
As held in Rangappa vs. Srimohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
15. Thus, as laid down in catena of decisions it is an established law that onus lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being preponderance of probability. Therefore, it becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Section 118 & 139 of NI Act.
16. Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence u/s 138 NI Act. This criminal liability can be attached by proving each of the elements of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced. I shall now go on to appreciate the evidence, documentary or oral, in the light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if it all.
Appreciation of Evidence and finding:
17. The primary defence that the accused has taken is that there is no legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant and against the accused as she had issued the cheque in question in favour of the CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 8/17 Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:43:21 +0530 complainant after she had made a complaint against the complainant upon which the complainant returned all her equipment and belongings which he had taken into his custody from the rented place for non-payment of rent to the complainant. It is the version of the accused that under the pressure of getting the return of her belongings, she had issued the cheque in question of Rs 45,000/- to the complainant.
In the facts of the present case, the signature on the cheque in question have not been denied by accused and accordingly, this court raises presumption under section 118(a) r/w section 139 of NI Act that the cheque in question was issued by accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is now on the accused to raise a probable defence and to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
18. Accused has remained silent throughout the trial and not stated anything to rebut the presumption raised against her. It would be relevant to state that accused has admitted the factum of being a tenant in the premises of the complainant and about the quantum of monthly rental amount and also the fact that due to business loss she was unable to pay regular monthly rent to the complainant.
Further, accused failed to cross examine the complainant on the defence raised by her in her answers given at the time of framing of notice under section 251 Cr.PC and further failed to lead any evidence in her defence. No evidence, material or record has been brought by the accused to substantiate the defence taken by her, that she had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant under pressure.
19. Even for the sake of arguments, if one were to believe that cheque in question was in fact, issued by accused under pressure of getting her CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 9/17 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.04.10 16:43:28 +0530 belongings back from the complainant, then two questions naturally arise, firstly, why did the accused issue the cheque in question only and not got any other document executed with the complainant to record extinguishment of her liability towards the complainant. The accused has not whispered anything about the reason for issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant if she had no liability towards the complainant.
Secondly, next question which would arise is that why accused did not file a complaint either with her bank or with the police in order to ensure that cheque as issued by her was not misused if the said cheque was issued by her under pressure. It is also noteworthy to point out that accused stated in her answer when notice under section 251 Cr.PC was served upon her and also during recording of her statement under section 313 Cr. PC that, she was unable to pay the rent to complainant and for the same reason, complainant took all her belongings and equipment and locked the rented premises. That when accused approached the police against the complainant and when complainant came at the police station, she issued the cheque in question under pressure of getting her belongings from the complainant. Accused however, has failed to bring on record any material or record to show that cheque was issued by her under pressure and has also not brought any evidence to show that she had cleared the pending rent amount due towards the complainant.
20. An adverse inference can safely be drawn against the accused who has failed to adduce any credible evidence to show the she indeed did everything within her power and control, as a prudent person would do to ensure that cheque tendered by her was not misused.
CC no.2925/2019Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 10/17 Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:43:36 +0530 There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused is truthful. It is a settled law that to rebut the presumption of Section 139 NI Act, accused is required to lead cogent evidence that full amount due and payable to the Complainant has been paid. In the present case, no such evidence has been led by the accused. Mere statement to this effect, without any oral or documentary evidence, doesn't inspire the confidence of this court
21. Reliance can further be placed on the judgment of V.S. Yadav v.
Reena CRL. A. NO. 1136 Of 2010 wherein it was held that:
"Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
If mere statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. or under Section 281 Cr. P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/ prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued."
Further, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sumeti Vij vs Paramount Tec Feb Industries (CRA 292/2021) LL 2021 SC 149, "The statement of the accused recorded under 313 of the Code is not substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstance appearing in the prosecution case of the accused".
22. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, it was burden upon the accused to prove the facts she pleaded in answer to the notice under 251 Cr.PC. No material in support of such plea having come on the CC no.2925/2019 Digitally signed Sharad Yadav vs Nisha by Abhinav 11/17 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.04.10 16:43:44 +0530 record, the statutory presumption u/s 139 NI Act in the case in hand has not been rebutted.
Reliance can be taken from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kumar Exports vs M/s Sharma Carpets, SLP(Crl.) 955/2007, wherein while discussing the denial of existence of legally enforceable debt in the context of Section 139 NI Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:, "bare denial of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of accused and something which is probable has to be brought on the record by the accused. Something which is probable has to brought on record for getting the proof of burden shifted to complainant".
This ratio has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Rao vs Shankar Gouda SLP (Crl.) 10030 of 2016.
23. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basa Lingapa vs Mudibasappa, SLP (Crl) 8641/2018 wherein it was stated that it is not fatal to the case of the accused if he fails to lead defence evidence. The court explained that accused can rely on material submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases accused may not need to adduce evidence of his or her own. Accused in the present case has not placed on record any cogent evidence nor pointed out any infirmities in the complainant evidence.
24. In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Delhi High Court in the above referred decisions, it makes very clear that ones the holder in due course i.e. complainant proves that, the cheque in question belongs to drawer CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 12/17 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.04.10 16:43:53 +0530 and the signature on the cheque are admitted by the drawer, mandatory requirements as required u/s 138 NI Act, a presumption u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally enforceable debt.
In the present case also, the complainant has complied with the mandatory requirement and has proved that, the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour and accused has also admitted her signature on the cheque when notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.PC was served upon her. Therefore, presumptions have to be drawn towards the legally enforceable debt as per section 139 NI Act.
25. Further, as per Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, a person who asserts a fact must prove the same unless the law otherwise provides.
In the present case, the onus was upon the accused to prove that she owed no liability towards the complainant or that she had returned the amount of money as claimed by the complainant and that nothing remains to be paid to the complainant, rested on the accused.
Accused has failed to bring on record any evidence that can satisfy the factum of repayment. No evidence of whatsoever nature, was led by the accused.
26. It is also important to note that accused has merely stated that she had issued the cheque in question under pressure to getting her material back from the complainant. The accused has not proved the said defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence. No efforts were undertaken by the accused to prove or substantiate this version.
It will be utter disregard to the established principle of evidence, if this court accepts the oral explanation or answer given CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 13/17 Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:44:00 +0530 by the accused during notice framing or submission made at the time of final arguments, devoid of any documentary evidence to concretize the proof. The story of the accused, in the absence of any credible evidence, cannot be taken as gospel truth.
27. Further as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v Mohan , 20110 11 SCC 441, wherein it was observed that, "In the light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability.
Without placing on record any evidence to disprove that cheque was not issued in discharge of liability, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
28. Now that the defences taken by the accused stands beseeched, let us examine the potentiality of the prosecution story. The complainant's story is that he inducted accused in his premises as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs 10,000 per month accused after paying the rent amount of the first month failed to pay any further rent amount and that when in the month of September 2018 when complainant demanded eight months rent and the electricity and water bill charges form the accused, accused filed a false complaint against him in PS Dabri to harras him in the police station accused accepted her liability of the pending rent amount and the water and electricity charges and thereafter issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant The record complainant has brought to substantiate his point are the cheque bearing no. 727560 dated 10.12.2018 as Ex. CW1/A, cheque return memo dated 17.12.2018 as Ex. CW1/, the CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 14/17 Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:44:07 +0530 legal demand notice dated 26.12.2018 Ex. CW1/C, Postal receipts Ex. CW1/D, rent agreement Ex.CW1/E.
29. The accused failed to impeach the credibility of the above said documents. In fact, the accused admitted her signature on the impugned cheque voluntarily. The burden lied heavily on the accused to have probablized the factum of repayment of the rent amount back to the complainant. It is not the case of the accused that the complainant obtained her signature on the cheque under duress or by exerting any pressure and even if, accused issued the cheque in favour of the complainant under pressure, accused miserably failed to establish the same by leading evidence.
Therefore, considering the weight of the attending circumstances viz, the consistency in the prosecution story, failure of the accused to put forth any reasonable and believable defence, admission of the accused that the signature on the cheque in question belongs to him and compelling documentary evidence placed on record the first element of Section 138 NI Act stands assembled
30. As for the second condition qua the presentation of the cheque within three months is concerned, the same is satisfied upon the perusal of the cheque in question Ex CW1/A dated 10.12.2018, while the return memo Ex CW1/B dated 17.12.2018, thus, being presented within the prescribed period of limitation of three months. The defence did not adduce any evidence whatsoever to contradict the same.
31. The third condition pertains to the cheque being returned unpaid owing to their being dishonored. Bank return memo or slip is prima facie proof of the dishonor. Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188, in this regard comes into play which raises a presumption that the court shall presume the fact of dishonor of the CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 15/17 Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:44:14 +0530 cheque in case of cheque is returned vide a return memo issued by the bank having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored. Perusal of bank dishonour memo i.e., Ex CW1/B shows that cheque in question on being presented in the bank was returned dishonoured due to "funds insufficient". Again, as the defence has failed to rebut the said presumption, hence the said condition is also satisfied.
32. Further, the legal notice was served by the complainant upon the accused on the address of the accused. The accused stated both during framing of u/s 251 Cr.PC and during recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that she did not receive the legal demand notice from the complainant.
Perusal of the notice u/s 251 Cr.PC and the bail bond as furnished by the accused reveals that address mentioned as by the accused on both, is the same address upon which the legal demand notice was sent by the complainant. Therefore, a presumption of deemed service is drawn under section 27 General Clauses Act which provides that where notice is sent to the correct address, the same shall be presumed to have been duly served. Also, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapatti Mohammad (Crl.) 767/2007 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "where the notice is sent by Registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 Act stands complied with.
Accused has failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of due service. As such, the legal notice stood served upon the accused, thus implying the satisfaction of the fourth condition.
CC no.2925/2019
Sharad Yadav vs Nisha Digitally signed 16/17
Abhinav by Abhinav
Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10
16:44:22 +0530
33. The last condition is that accused fails to make the payment within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the legal demand notice. In the present case, the accused has evidently failed to make the payment within the fifteen days contending that he owes no legal liability to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques in question. The accused has miserably failed to prove said assertion and thus, the last limb of what will entail the liability against the accused, is also structured.
34. Ratio: To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in establishing his case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had issued the cheque in question in discharge of her legally enforceable liability. The presumptions under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act were drawn against the accused. The accused has miserably failed to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence. The defence of the accused that she had no legal liability towards the complainant is not proved, even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Resultantly, the accused, is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
35. Let the copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Abhinav Digitally signed by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.04.10 16:44:31 +0530 Announced in the open court on Abhinav Ahlawat 10.04.2023 MM-NI Act -02, SW/Delhi CC no.2925/2019 Sharad Yadav vs Nisha 17/17