Delhi District Court
Cc No. 1272 M/S Savex Technologies ... vs . Shiney E Park Pvt. Ltd Page No.1 Of 15 on 24 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH
M.M.- 01, (N. I. ACT), DIGITAL COURT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI.
JUDGMENT
CC No.1272-2021 M/S.Savex Technologies Private Limited Through Its AR Sh. Arun Bhati (Deputy Manager of Sales) Mr. Nagender Singh (Sr. Executive Accounts) Registered office at 124, Maker Chamber ITI, Nariman Point, Mumbai.
........................................................ Complainant Versus
1. M/S Shiney E- Park Pvt. Ltd.
Office at GF-1, Hans Plaza, A-11, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad 2010 01, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Aadhar Garg (Director) Office at GF-1, Hans Plaza, A-11, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad 2010 01, Uttar Pradesh.
........................................................Accused
a) Unique/new case number : DLND02-002570-2021
b) Name of complainant :M/S.SavexTechnologies Private Limited
c) Name of accused person(s) : M/S Shiney E- Park Pvt. Ltd.
Aadhar Garg (Director)
d) Offence complained of : Under Section 138 of N. I. Act,1881.
e) Plea of accused person(s) : Pleaded not guilty Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.24 17:55:02 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.1 of 15
f) Final order : Acquittal
g) Date of such order : 24.06.2023 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) Case of the complainant
1. The present Judgment is a result of culmination of trial initiated on the complaint filed by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant company is doing its business under the name and style of M/s. Savex Technologies Pvt Ltd and engaged in the business of Information Technology Peripherals Distribution. It is further stated that accused company purchased some goods mentioned in the invoices which are Ex. CW 1/2 (Colly) from the complainant company. It is further stated that in discharge of its liability, accused no. 2 on behalf of accused no. 1 provided the complainant company five cheques bearing no. 294133 dated 09.12.2020, for an amount of Rs. 2,75,100.90/-, bearing no. 000156 dated 09.12.2020, for an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, bearing no. 000157 dated 09.12.2020, for an amount of Rs. 4,50,005/-, bearing no. 000158 dated 09.12.2020, for an amount of Rs. 4,50,003/-, bearing no. 000159 dated 09.12.2020, for an amount of Rs. 4,50,001/-, Drawn on HDFC Bank, which are Ex. CW1/3, Ex. CW1/4, Ex. CW1/5, Ex. CW1/6, Ex. CW1/7.
2. Complainant presented the cheque in question to his banker for encashment but the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement" for cheque bearing no. 294133 and "Funds insufficient" for other cheques Ex. CW1/4, Ex. CW1/5, Ex. CW1/6, Ex. CW1/7 vide separate return memo dated 10.12.2020, Ex. CW1/8 (Colly).
Digitally Harjot signed Harjot by Singh Singh Date:
CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.2 of 15
3. The complainant demanded the above said amount from the accused but he did not make the payment. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.12.2020 Ex. CW1/9 through speed post Ex. CW1/10 (Colly) and delivery report is Ex. CW 1/11 (Colly). The accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the present complaint case was filed.
4. Pre summoning evidence was recorded and proceedings were initiated against accused no.1 company and accused no. 2 Mr. Aadhar Garg. On summoning, accused persons entered their appearance and it was ensured that copy of complaint has been supplied. Thereafter notice under section 251 CrPC was put to the accused persons on 13.12.2022.
The Defence
5. Plea of defence was recorded on 13.12.2022. Wherein accused stated that" The cheques in question were given to the complainant as performance/security cheques. I have returned/cleared all the dues of the complainant. Despite paying all the amount the complainant had presented my cheques and misused them. I do not want to say anything further". Thereafter, matter was fixed for complainant evidence and accused side was granted opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's evidence.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
6. During the trial, complainant has led the oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The following evidence are as under:
Oral Evidence CW1 Shri Arun Bhati Documentary Evidence Ex. CW1/1 Copy of Board Resolution dated 15.12.2020.
Harjot Digitally signed by Harjot Singh Singh Date: 2023.06.24 17:55:11 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.3 of 15 Ex. CW1/2 19 Invoices.
(Colly) Ex. CW 1/3 Original cheque bearing no. 294133.
Ex.CW 1/4. Original cheque bearing no. 000156 Ex. CW 1/5 Original cheque bearing no. 000157.
Ex.CW 1/6. Original cheque bearing no. 000158.
Ex. CW1/7 Original cheque bearing no. 000159.
Ex. CW 1/8 Five original returning memos dated 10.12.2020. (Colly) Ex. CW1/9 Legal Notice dated 28.12.2020.
Ex.CW1/10 2 Courier speed post receipts.
(Colly) Ex.CW1/11 2 Delivery reports .
(Colly) Ex. CW Reply to legal demand notice dated 14.01.2021.
1/12Ex. CW Statement of ledger account.
1/13Complainant stepped in witness box as CW1 and adopted his affidavit of pre- summoning as his evidence reiterating almost all facts of complaint, stating all exhibits available on record. The accused in cross-examination of the AR of the complainant has relied on Ex. CW 1/D1 to Ex. CW 1/D13.
7. Complainant evidence was closed vide order dated 11.04.2023 and thereafter, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
8. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.24 17:55:15 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.4 of 15 1973 on 04.05.2023. Incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused denied all the allegations. In recording of statement of accused, accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
9. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 04.05.2023.
10. Final arguments were addressed by the complainant and accused. Case file perused.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION-
11. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity; Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank; Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank; Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE- . Digitally signed
Harjot by Harjot Singh
Date:
2023.06.24
Singh 17:55:20
+0530
CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.5 of 15
12. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 r/w Section 141 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
Notably, there is no dispute qua the proof of first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheques vide Ex. CW1/3, Ex. CW1/4, Ex. CW1/5, Ex. CW1/6, Ex. CW1/7, which the accused had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused and is duly signed by the accused no. 2. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memos Ex. CW1/8 (Colly) with the remark "exceeds arrangement and insufficient funds". The accused has admitted the receipt of the legal demand notice dated 28.12.2020 Ex. CW 1/9 in his notice framed under 251 Cr.P.C on 13.12.2022 and in his statement recorded under Section 313 r/w Section 281 of Cr.P.C on 04.05.2023. The legal demand notice was also replied by the accused vide Ex. CW 1/12.
13. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the accused has disputed his liability qua the cheques as the accused contended that the dues of complainant company are totally cleared by the accused company and nothing remains to be paid on behalf of the accused company to the complainant company. Further, it was contended that there is no legal liability of the accused as the cheques in question have been misused by the complainant company. It is well settled law that mere denial by the accused would not rebut the statutory presumptions u/s 138 and u/s 118 of NI Act which arises in favour of the complainant under NI act and presumption will still arise in favour of complainant. Digitally signed by Harjot Harjot Singh Date:
Singh 2023.06.24
17:55:24
+0530
CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.6 of 15
14. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarize the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.24 17:55:32 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.7 of 15 of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the defence raised by the Ld. counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption is discussed below:
15. Defence that the cheques in question were not issued for any existing legal liability.
15.1 On behalf of the accused persons, it is contended that there is no legal liability of the accused company towards the complainant company. It is vehemently argued that the complainant company based its claim towards the accused persons on the basis of 19 invoices placed on record by the complainant company as Ex. CW 1/2 (Colly). It is further argued that the AR of the complainant company in his cross-examination recorded on 12.01.2023 has admitted that the accused had made part payment towards some of the invoices.
Digitally signed by Harjot Harjot Singh Date:
Singh 2023.06.24
17:55:36
+0530
CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.8 of 15
It is further argued on behalf of the accused that, when the payment of some of the invoices has been made by the accused persons to the complainant company then, how can the complainant company can present the cheques for full amount i.e. the amount of all the 19 invoices collectively amounting to Rs. 20,75,109.9/-. Therefore it is contended that the cheques in question have been misused by the complainant company as the same were presented for encashment for more amount than the amount what is actually and totally recoverable if any from the accused persons.
It is further contended that the complainant company had presented the cheques for full amount without any endorsement on the cheques as required under Section 56 of NI Act as the part payment of some of the invoices was already made to the complainant company before the presentation of the cheques in question. The accused places reliance on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VS HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2022".
15.2 Arguendo, the complainant by way of written arguments has contended that the payment made by the accused persons was adjusted by the complainant company towards some other dues of the accused company and the payment of 19 invoices in question is still unpaid and due to be paid by the accused. It is also contended that the accused used to make payment in a running account maintained by the complainant and not towards the particular invoices raised by the complainant company. Further it is argued that even if the accused has made the payment of some of the invoices, still then the payment of other invoices is pending to be paid by the accused persons to the complainant company.
15.3 Considering the contention of the parties and the material on record, the court is of the considered opinion that in the present complaint, the complainant has based its claim on the basis of 19 invoices Ex. CW 1/2 (Colly). The above said factum is duly Harjot Digitally signed by Harjot Singh Date: 2023.06.24 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Singh 17:55:41 +0530 Page No.9 of 15 mentioned by the complainant in the evidence affidavit Ex. CW 1/A and is also admitted by the AR of the complainant in his cross-examination recorded on 12.01.2023.
Further the AR of the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that the complainant company has received the payment of some of the invoices. Such admission is with respect to the specific invoice number and the corresponding date of payment of the specific invoice number, the details of which are as follows:
INVOICE NO DATE OF PAYMENT 1. NO2TI2021102088 14.07.2020 2. NO2TI2021102152 16.07.2020 3. NO2TI2021102228 18.07.2020 4. NO2TI2021102345 21.07.2020 5. NO2TI2021102356 21.07.2020 6. NO2TI2021102466 23.07.2020 7. NO2TI2021102566 27.07.2020 8. NO2TI2021102743 29.07.2020 9. NO2TI2021102907 04.08.2020 10.NO2TI2021103057 07.08.2020 11.NO2TI2021103196 11.08.2020
It is pertinent to note here that the complainant through its AR has not tendered any explanation in the cross-examination and has not produced any document or evidence to show that the payment made by the accused person was not considered for the particular invoices and was adjusted by the complainant company somewhere else against some other pending dues of the accused persons. No voluntary explanation was given by the AR to the admissions made by him in his cross-examination other than denying the suggestion that all the invoices were duly paid by the accused persons. Therefore, the stand of the complainant that the payment made by the accused persons was adjusted somewhere else in some other pending dues and not against the invoices in question is devoid of any merit.
Harjot Digitally signed
by Harjot Singh
Date: 2023.06.24
Singh 17:55:45 +0530
CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.10 of 15
Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the payment of the above said 11 invoices has been duly received by the complainant company and there is no liability of the accused persons to pay the amount of the 11 invoices as above mentioned. Further, no evidence has been brought on record by the accused regarding the payment or non- payment of other 8 invoices as mentioned vide Ex. CW 1/2 (Colly).
15.4 Further, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has presented the cheques for full amount of all the 19 invoices collectively without deducting the part payment of 11 invoices already made by the accused persons as aforesaid. Also, no endorsement has been made by the complainant company on the cheques in question as required under Section 56 r/w Section 15 of NI Act before its presentation for encashment.
It is here pertinent to refer to Section 56 and Section 15 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which reads as follows:
Section 56 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
56. Indorsement for part of sum due.--No writing on a negotiable instrument is valid for the purpose of negotiation if such writing purports to transfer only a part of the amount appearing to be due on the instrument; but where such amount has been partly paid a note to that effect may be indorsed on the instrument, which may then be negotiated for the balance.
Section 15 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
15. Indorsement.--When the maker or holder of a negotiable instrument signs the same, otherwise than as such maker, for the purpose of negotiation, on the back or face thereof or on a slip of paper annexed thereto, or so signs for the same purpose a stamped paper intended to be completed as a negotiable instrument, he is said to indorse the same, and is called the "indorser".
Digitally signedHarjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.24 17:55:51 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.11 of 15 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VS HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2022" has laid the following observations while explaining the context of Section 56 and Section 15 of Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The observations as laid down by the Apex Court are as follows:
(i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonored must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation;
(ii) If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque;
(iii) When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonored when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted.
Therefore, as per joint reading of Section 15 and Section 56 of NI Act along with the observations laid down by the Apex Court, the drawee of the cheque cannot present the cheque for total liability without making endorsement under Section 56 of NI Act when the drawer has made some part payment before the presentation of the cheque for encashment. The drawee can only present the cheque for an amount what is actually recoverable from the drawer on the date of presentation of the cheque for encashment.
In the instant case, the cheques in question were presented for an amount of Rs. 20,75,109.9/- i.e. the collective sum of the 19 invoices Ex. CW 1/2 (Colly). It is an Harjot Digitally signed by Harjot Singh Date: 2023.06.24 Singh 17:55:56 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.12 of 15 admitted position that the payment of 11 invoices was already made by the accused persons before the cheques were presented for encashment. Therefore, it is not wrong to establish that the sum of the amount of 11 invoices was not deducted from the amount actually due from the accused and the cheques were presented for total liability only without any endorsement as to the part payment made by the accused persons. Therefore, it can be concluded that the accused person are not liable to pay the amount of 11 invoices of which the payment is admitted by the complainant and the cheques in question were presented for more amount than the amount what is actually recoverable from the accused persons on the date of presentation of the cheques. Hence, the accused has raised a plausible doubt regarding his liability towards the complainant company on the date of presentation of the cheques in question.
16. The accused has not led any direct evidence but has relied on the testimony and the evidence adduced by the complainant. He has pointed out material inconsistencies and contradictions in the case of the complainant. In light of the defense taken by the accused it can be clearly seen that the accused has been successful in raising a plausible doubt in the story of the complainant.The primary onus on the accused was to rebut the presumptions raised under Section 118(a) and section 139 of NI Act. The standard of proof required by the accused to discharge his burden is of preponderance of probabilities and he has sucessfully discharged his burden by punching holes in the version of the complainant and by rebutting his liability towards the complainant company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39 has observed as under, "32. A Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal [(1999) 3 SCC 35] albeit in a civil case laid down the law in the following terms:
"Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory Digitally signed Harjot byDate:Harjot Singh Singh 2023.06.24 17:56:02 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.13 of 15 note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt"
17. Hence, in the light of discussions and the authorities cited in the aforegoing para(s), it is apparent that the case of the complainant company that the cheque in question was issued to the company by the accused for the purpose of discharging a existing legal debt or liability is unworthy of credit and fails to inspire the confidence of the court. The fact that the cheque was presented for more amount than the amount which was actually due towards the complainant company clearly indicates that the cheque was not issued in "discharge of any existing legally enforceable debt or other Digitally signed Harjot by Harjot Singh Date: Singh 2023.06.24 17:56:06 +0530 CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.14 of 15 liability".Thus, it can be clearly said that the accused has rebutted the presumption raised under section 139 of NI Act. Thus, the second ingredient to the offence under section 138 of NI Act does not stands proved.
CONCLUSION:
18. To recapitulate the above discussion, the accused has been successful in establishing a probable defence on a standard of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act by punching the holes in the case of the complainant and making the case of the complainant doubtful. Cogent evidence is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction in a criminal trial. The accused has been successful in establishing a probable defence by way of pointing out the material inconsistencies in the case of the complainant and thereby proving that the cheque was not given in discharge of existing legal debt or liability owed to the complainant. In the result of the analysis of the present case, the accused no. 1 Shiney E-Park, Private Limited is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accused no. 2 Sh. Aadhar Garg is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Announced in the open Court Digitally
signed by
On 24.06.2023
Harjot Harjot Singh
Date:
Singh 2023.06.24
17:56:11
+0530
(Harjot Singh)
M.M (N.I.Act),Digital Court-01
PHC/New Delhi/24.06.2023
CC No. 1272 M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHINEY E PARK PVT. LTD Page No.15 of 15