Delhi District Court
Amit Jain vs Rakesh Boyet on 29 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. PARIDHI GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
New CC No.: 5006210/2016
Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet
Under Section: 138, The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. Name & address of the complainant : Amit Jain,
S/o Sh. Anil Jain,
R/o RBlock, H. No. 1,
Mohan Garden, Uttam
Nagar,
New Delhi 110059.
2. Name & address of the accused : Rakesh Boyet,
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal,
R/o H. No. 370371,
Block G1, Dall Mil Road,
Gali no. 7, near Sanathan,
Dharam Mandir, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi 110059.
3. Offence complained of : U/S 138, The Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881.
4. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
5. Final order : Convicted.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016
Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
6. Date of such order : 29.10.2018
7. Date of Institution of case : 18.11.2016
8. Date of decision of the case : 29.10.2018
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant, Amit Jain (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') against accused, Rakesh Boyet (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').
2. Factual Matrix: The complainant's case, bereft of unnecessary details, is that the accused approached the complainant for advancement of a friendly loan of Rs. 8,50,000/. Considering the relations, the complainant advanced a loan of Rs. 8,50,000/ to the accused. An agreement was executed between the two in respect of the advancement of the loan in question in the presence of witnesses on 13.07.2016. The accused promised to repay the said loan during the period between 13.07.2016 to 12.09.2016.
3. To discharge the liability, the accused tendered one cheque on New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 29.09.2016 amounting to Rs. 8,50,000/ bearing number 704656 drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 12B, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'cheque in question') in favour of the complainant with the assurance that the same will be honoured. Upon presentation whereof, however, the same got dishonoured and was returned to the complainant vide return memo dated 30.09.2016 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The complainant thereafter, sent a legal demand notice dated 04.10.2016 to the accused calling upon him to repay the loan amount within fifteen days of the receipt thereof. The complainant has claimed that the said legal notice was duly served at the correct address of the accused through speed post.
4. However, the accused did not come forward to repay his debt within the prescribed period of fifteen days. Hence, being aggrieved, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 18.11.2016.
5. The complainant has averred that the complaint is within the period of limitation as is prescribed under section 138 read with section 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the same falls within the territorial limits of this Court; thus, being tenable at law.
6. Prayed for: As relief, the complainant has sought that the accused be summoned, tried and punished under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
7. Presummoning evidence: To prove his case prima facie, the complainant led the presummoning evidence under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. by way of an affidavit which is Ex. CW1/B wherein the complainant avouched the same facts as are averred in the complaint.
8. Documentary evidence: To pillar and reinforce the above claims, the complainant has filed the copy of the loan agreement which is Ex. CW1/A (OSR). The original cheque in question is Ex. CW1/1 while the cheque return memo in respect of the cheque in question is Ex. CW1/2. The legal demand notice sent to the accused by the complainant is Ex. CW1/3 and the postal receipt qua the same is Ex. CW1/4. Lastly, the internet generated tracking report is Ex. CW1/5.
9. Summoning of accused and chain of subsequent events: The court summoned the accused after hearing the arguments at the stage of presummoning vide order dated 06.01.2017 and the accused entered appearance in the present case on 10.03.2017. He was admitted to bail vide order dated 24.04.2017.
10. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused pursuant to arguments being advanced on the point of consideration thereof by the court on 24.04.2017. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused and after being satisfied that the accused comprehended the same, the court recorded his plea.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
11. Plea of the accused: The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He stated in his defence that he and the complainant were engaged in a business transaction to purchase a property wherein the complainant was to invest certain amount and was further required to remit some amount via RTGS. The accused added that the complainant failed to do so and hence, the transaction could not be materialized. He asserted that he issued two cheques including the cheque in question in respect of such deal. The accused admitted his signatures on the impugned cheque and claimed that, except the amount, he did not fill the other particulars therein. Lastly, he admitted to receiving the legal demand notice and asseverated that he did not send any reply thereto.
12. Evidence of the complainant: To prove his case, the complainant adopted his presummoning evidence as his postsummoning evidence and got himself examined as CW1. He was subjected to crossexamination wherein he inter alia deposed that he has known the accused since 2015 as the accused is a property dealer. The complainant added that he has known the accused through one O.P Sharma. He testified that he and the accused used to meet as he is an astrologer and deals with precious stones, in respect whereof, the accused wanted to consult him. The complainant stated that he has never visited the house of the accused.
13. Upon being questioned as to how he came to know about the residential address of the accused, the complainant answered that he purchased a property and the accused had stood as a witness to the execution of the sale deed.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
The complainant asserted that the accused gave his Aadhaar card as an identity proof and that he had dropped the accused to his house once when the odd - even scheme was implemented in Delhi.
14. The complainant further avouched that he is an income tax assessee and files ITR. He stated that he has not shown the factum of advancement of loan in question in his ITR. The complainant deposed that the accused told him that he wanted the loan in question to invest the money in some business. He admitted that it is not mentioned in the loan agreement that the loan was taken for business purposes.
15. When the complainant was confronted with Para four of his affidavit, Ex. CW1/B, the complainant clarified that the period commencing from 13.07.2016 and 12.09.2016 was the period when the accused was required to pay the loan amount. He admitted that the accused had to repay the loan in question to him within the period mentioned above.
16. The complainant testified that he had given the loan in fragments on various dates but that he did not remember the exact dates. The complainant avowed that he had given approximately Rs. 1,50,000/ to Rs. 2,00,000/ to the accused on each of such dates and the last fragment of Rs. 2,00,000/, out of the total loan in question, was given on 13.07.2016. The complainant asserted that he had not taken any receipt or other document from the accused at the time of granting the fragments of loan to the accused. The complainant claimed that he had given the loan to the New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 accused after receiving payments from his customers and that he could produce the relevant bank statements to prove the same.
17. Upon being recalled for further crossexamination, the complainant testified that the first installment of the loan in question was given by him to the accused in the month of May 2016. The complainant further testified that he had given the said amount towards the first installment and had arranged the same out of the sale proceeds of his business. The complainant filed his ITR and balance sheets which are mark X. The bank statement filed by the complainant is exhibit Ex. CW 1/D1. The complainant stated that he has not filed any receipts before the court.
18. The witness was shown the bank statement filed by him wherein he highlighted the relevant entries. The complainant stated that an amount of Rs.6,34,000/ was paid on various dates in fragments as per his bank statement. He added that the remaining amount was paid in cash.
19. The complainant admitted that, as per his ITR, his income during the year 2016-2017 was Rs. 4,78,020/. The witness avouched that he does not have any license for money lending. He stated that he had given money to the accused for the purpose of business and again said that the money was given as a friendly loan as is mentioned in the agreement. Lastly, the complainant stated that, except the date, the accused had filled the particulars in the cheque in question.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
20. The complainant closed his evidence on 23.06.2018 without calling and examining any further witness.
21. Examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.: The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.03.2018 wherein he stated that he did not issue the impugned cheque in respect of any laibility. The accused asserted that he and the complainant engaged in a property dealing wherein it was agreed between the two that the complainant shall invest a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/ and he shall receive double the amount. The accused alleged that the complainant demanded two cheques from him and assured him that he shall remit a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/ in his bank account. The accused stated that he executed the agreement as per the demand of the complainant. However, no amount was remitted by the complainant. He admitted his signatures on the impugned cheque but denied filling the particulars therein. He also admitted to receiving the legal demand notice and added that he did not send a reply thereto.
22. Defence Evidence: The accused chose not to lead any evidence.
23. Final Arguments: Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Dhruv Kaushal, argued that the complainant granted a friendly loan to the accused and the repayment of the loan of Rs. 8,50,000/ has not been proved by the accused. Learned counsel further contended that the version of the accused has not been substantiated by any evidence to stand up for and bolster the same. Learned counsel asserted that the documents filed by the complainant have been duly proved and have not been New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 impeached by the defence. He further argued that the plea of defence of the accused is far from the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The complaint, being within limitation, has been successfully proved by the complainant against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the accused be convicted for the offence under section 138 NI Act.
24. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused, Mr. S. Chakrabarthy argued that the accused owes no legal liability towards the complainant. Pointing out various infirmities in the testimony of the complainant, learned counsel also challenged the capacity of the complainant to advance the loan in question. Accordingly, he submitted that the complaint being a false one, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence complained of.
25. I have heard both the learned counsel; pursued the material on record and considered the submissions advanced.
26. Appreciation of evidence and finding: Now coming to the merits of the case, I first deem it pertinent to enunciate the law relating to dishonour of cheque.
27. To bring home a liability under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following elements must spring out from the averments in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant, viz, New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
1. 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;
2. The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date mentioned on the cheque or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
3. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because 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;
4. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
28. It becomes imperative to mention section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which carves out a 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 the section 118 of the same enactment which spells out another presumption in favour of the drawee that every negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
29. That said, what follows from the above is that the web of proof in a 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 in a trial under section 138 NI Act thus, 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 fact. The court is obligated to draw presumptions and only when the contrary are proved by the defence, the same will be said to be rebutted. Whereas the standard of proof remains the same in such a trial, the reverse onus of proof on the defence is guided by the principle of preponderance of probabilities only. As rebuttal evidence, the accused merely has to prove that the cheque was not given for any consideration or that there was no legal liability in existence against him for which the negotiable instrument was given.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
30. In this regard, reliance can be placed on Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 wherein it was held as under:
"22. 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, ..., it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption has 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 (...). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court may presume a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable probability of the nonexistence of the New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 presumed fact. 23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, the discretion is left with the Court to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the prudent man."
31. Since criminal liability can be attached by proving each element of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced, I shall now go on to appreciate the evidence documentary and oral, in light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if at all.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
32. The first condition pertains to the issuance of the cheque in question to make the payment from an account maintained by the drawer of the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In the present case, the accused has denied the issuance of the cheque in question in favour of the complainant towards any legal liability and has asserted that the same was given merely as a security in respect of a sale and purchase of a property.
33. The factor that renders this defence version bizarre and suspicious is that the accused has brought forth not even an iota of evidence to pillar his defence. Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enunciates that the person who asserts a fact must prove the same unless the law otherwise provides. In the present case, the onus to prove that the complainant did not grant a friendly loan to the accused and rather entered into a property transaction with the accused, rested on the latter. The accused has failed to disclose the identity of the said property, the relevant details qua the alleged transaction, including the date thereof, much less prove this version, throughout the journey of trial. The story of the accused, in the absence of any credible evidence, cannot be taken as a gospel truth.
34. As far as the defence that the cheque was given merely as security is concerned, it is a settled tenet of law that security cheques do not fall out of the purview of section 138 NI Act. Moreover, the accused has failed to show as to how the impugned cheque was given merely as security and that he owes no liability in respect thereto.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
35. For the sake of argument if one were to assume that the cheque in question was in fact, given as security to the complainant, as alleged by the accused, then two pertinent questions may take birth out of reasonability one, why did the accused not send a written notice to the complainant to demand the cheque back from him after alleged failure of the complainant to invest the money in respect of the property transaction. Merely stating that the cheque was given as security shall not suffice either to obscure the story put forth by the prosecution or to cause the probabilities to lie in one's favour. The second question that would surface from the womb of reasonability is that why did the accused not file any complaint either with his bank or with the police in order to ensure that the cheque was not misused, more so, when the complainant refused to return the same to him?! The failure to lodge/file any complaint further causes dubiety to lurk around the story of the defence. An adverse inference can safely be drawn against the accused who has otherwise failed to adduce any affirmative evidence to show that he indeed did everything within his power and control, as a prudent man would do, to ensure that the cheque tendered by him, allegedly as security, was not misused. Failure of the accused to prevent such alleged misuse materially ejects plausibility out of the defence version.
36. Reliance can profitably be placed on the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Parent High Court in V.S. Yadav v. Reena CRL. A. NO. 1136 Of 2010 wherein it was held that:
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 "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. It was for the accused to prove if no loan was taken why he did not write a letter to the complainant for return of the cheque. Unless the accused had proved that he acted like a normal businessman/prudent person entering into a contract he could not have rebutted the presumption u/s 139 N.I. Act. If no loan was given, but cheques were retained, he immediately would have protested and asked the cheques to be returned and if still cheques were not returned, he New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 would have served a notice as complainant. Nothing was proved in this case."
37. Now that the defences taken by the accused stand beseeched, let us examine the potentiality of the prosecution story. The complainant's unpretentious story is that he granted a friendly loan of Rs. 8,50,000/ to the accused and the accused issued the impugned cheque in his favour to repay the said loan. The record brims with compelling documentary evidence to stand up for and bolster his story. The complainant has relied on an agreement, Ex. CW1/A (OSR), executed by the accused for the said sum in the presence of witnesses. The accused did not bring any evidence to impeach the credibility of the said document. Also, the document looks neither patently nor latently suspicious. In fact, the accused has admitted that he executed the same.
38. The accused has asseverated that he executed the agreement at the behest of the complainant. In the present case, the accused has failed to show that he exercised any caution or circumspection which could portray his bona fides. The accused could have initiated a legal proceeding to cancel the said outstanding document if the complainant failed to perform his part of the agreement. However, the accused did not take any steps to get the said document annulled by a court of law. In the absence of any diligence on the part of the accused, it can be safely concluded that the veracity of Ex. CW1/A is intact and the same does not reek of any stench of falsity.
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23
39. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out certain discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant and inter alia challenged his financial potentiality to advance the loan in question to the accused. He argued that in light of such infirmities, the accused has perforated the case of the prosecution and hence, rebutted the statutory presumptions. However, dismally for the accused, this argument can hardly be sustained on the premise that the complainant has filed a duly executed document qua the transaction in question, the creditworthiness whereof has not been challenged by the defence at any stage. Stray and minor infirmities in the testimony of the complainant shall not come to the rescue of the accused in a case which rests on a document based technical offence and has otherwise been unimpeachably proved by the prosecution.
40. The above view is endorsed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as Sanjay Arora v. Monika Singh Crl. A. 98/2017 wherein it has been held that:
"Mere admission of the complainant that he was earning only Rs. 12,000/ per month from his small business or his failure to file income tax returns, or his omission to produce the bank passbook or to examine Chhotu as a witness in corroboration, are inconsequential. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, it was the burden of the respondent to prove the facts that she had pleaded in answer to the New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. No material in support of such plea having come on record, the statutory presumption under section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act in the case at hand has not been rebutted. "
41. Further, the argument of the defence that the bank account of the complainant reflects that only a payment of Rs. 6,34,000/ was withdrawn by the complainant and that the same does not correspond to the liability sought to be fastened against the accused, is also without merit as the complainant deposed that he gave the remaining amount to the accused in cash. The said fact has neither been challenged nor disproved by the defence. The giving of the loan amount by the complainant to the accused, is anyway, reinforced by the document, Ex. CW1/A (OSR).
42. Although the complainant did not disclose the factum of advancement of loan in question in his ITR yet such factor alone cannot be enslaving enough to shroud the prosecution story with a fog of murkiness. Only an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant if he has not disclosed the said fact in his ITR but if the attending circumstances are of such a nature as would unflinchingly incriminate the accused, then the prosecution case shall not collapse merely because the complainant has not disclosed the factum of loan advanced in his ITR. Also, the complainant shall face the music if an action is taken by the Income Tax department New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 but it shall not be a factor disentitling the complainant to a relief he has claimed in the present case.
43. Interestingly, throughout the course of trial, the accused has not disputed his signatures on the cheque in question and has also admitted during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., that he filled all the particulars except the date therein, Admittedly, despite service of the statutory demand notice, he did not send any reply thereto. He has merely baldly denied the issuance of the cheque towards the payment of the amount mentioned therein and towards any legal debt.
44. Inarguably and rather agreeably, the accused has a constitutional right to silence and his not adducing defence evidence should not be construed as his failure to rebut the presumption yet if the case of the prosecution is able to stand on its own legs and there are incriminating and arresting circumstances propelling a reasonable man to infer that the accused has indeed committed an offence, the accused must dispel such inference by adducing affirmative and cogent evidence to support his defence. Taking a defence cannot be equated with proving the same even though the standard of proving the same is only preponderance of probabilities. It is incumbent upon the accused to breathe life in his defence by way of oxygenating evidence to make his defence probable and thus, believable. The accused, in the present case, has chosen not to lead any evidence despite being given an opportunity, on the pretext and assumption that the case of the complainant is devoid of corroborative evidence. However, dismally for the accused, the evidence of the complainant has passed the test of objectivity, reason and cogency thereby, New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 standing firm on the pillars of logic bricked by presumptions which the accused has failed to rebut.
45. Reliance can safely be placed on the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Parent High Court in V. S. Yadav Vs Reena (172 (2010) DLT 561) wherein it was held that:
"It must be borne in mind that the statement of accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C or u/s 313 Cr.P.C is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness, his statement u/s 281 Cr.P.C or 313 Cr.P.C cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful. In the present case, the accused in his statement stated that he had given cheques as security. If the accused wanted to prove this, he was supposed to appear in the witness box and testify and get himself subjected to cross examination."
46. Therefore, considering the weight of the attending circumstances viz, the consistency in the prosecution story, the compelling documentary evidence New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 adduced by the complainant and lastly, that the accused has not proved his defence to cause the probabilities to lie in his favour, the first element of section 138 NI Act stands assembled.
47. As for the second condition qua the presentation of the cheque within three months, the same is satisfied upon the perusal of the cheque in question, Ex. CW1/1 dated 29.09.2016 and the return memo ExCW1/2 which is dated 30.09.2016, thus, being presented within prescribed period of limitation of three months. The defence did not to adduce any evidence whatsoever to contradict the same.
48. The third condition pertains to the return of the cheque as unpaid owing to it being dishonoured. Section 146 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in this regard comes into play which raises a presumption that the court shall presume the fact of dishonor of the cheque in case the cheque is returned vide a return memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured. Such bank slip or memo is a prima facie proof of dishonor. At the cost of repetition, the defence has failed to rebut the said presumption as well. Hence, the condition is fulfilled.
49. As far as the making of demand by sending a legal notice is concerned, the complainant had sent the same, Ex. 1/3, to the accused who chose not to reply to the same. There is a crisp admission of the accused at the time of framing New CC No.: 5006210/2016 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23 of notice. that the accused received the legal demand notice thus, implying the satisfaction of the fourth condition.
50. The last condition is that the 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 fifteen days on the pretext that he owes no liability towards the complainant. However, he has miserably failed to prove the said assertion. Thus, the last limb of what will entail the liability against the accused is also structured.
51. Ratio: Finally, having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the presumption spelled under section 139, the law enunciated under section 138 and the judgments cited above and at bar, the offence under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused, Rakesh Boyet. The weight of the evidence adduced by the complainant to prove his case against the accused is sufficient enough to impute criminality on him. The complainant has discharged his burden to prove his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is accordingly, convicted of the said offence.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 29.10.2018 Paridhi Gupta MM/N.I.Act02/South West Dwarka, Delhi Digitally signed by PARIDHI GUPTA PARIDHI Date:
New CC No.: 5006210/2016 GUPTA 2018.10.30 17:00:27 +0530 Amit Jain versus Rakesh Boyet 23/23