Delhi District Court
M/S.A.S.I. Sales Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Atma Ram Sharma And Sons on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANGI MANGLA,
JMFC (NI Act) - 05
WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. : DLWT020169372021
CT. CASE NO. : 2791/2021
CASE TITLE : M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons
19.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Complaint Case number : 2791/2021
2. Name of the complainant : M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd.
At M-8, Shivam House, Karampura Complex, New Delhi-15 Through its Director Shri Manoj Anand
3. Name and address of the : 1. M/s. ATMA RAM SHARMA accused & SONS Through its Partners/ Auth Signatory
2. Mr. AJAY SHARMA Partners/ Auth Signatory of M/s.
ATMA RAM SHARMA & SONS Whats App No. - 9917384610
3. Mr. MUKESH SHARMA Partners/ Auth Signatory of M/s.
ATMA RAM SHARMA & SONS Whats App No- 9837456162 Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.02.19 17:47:32 +0530 At- D-4, Ram Nagar Industrial Area Estate, Roorkee, Uttarakhand- 247667.
Email:-
[email protected] [email protected]
4. Offence complained of or : Under Section 138 of the proved Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final Order : CONVICTION
7. Date of Institution : 06.10.2021
8. Date of pronouncement : 19.02.2026 JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter, Ct. Cases No. 2791/2021 filed by complainant against the dishonor of cheque bearing No. 760909 dated 13.04.2021 for a sum of Rs. 46,15,526/- drawn on State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Roorkee Distt, Haridwar, Uttarkhand-247667. (henceforth, the cheque in question).
2. Briefly stated, the facts that the complainant company is Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:37 +0530 legally registered and its Director (Shri Manoj Anand) is authorized to file the present complaint. Accused No.1 is the partnership firm. Accused No. 2 and No. 3 are its partners/authorized signatories who manage daily operations and are responsible for the firm's actions. The complainant supplied goods/materials and issued invoices. Part payments were made and as guarantee the cheque in question along with the cheque bearing no. 760910 was issued in favor of complainant for discharging the legal debt/ liability. On receipt of instructions, the cheque in question was presented in bank for encashment. However, the same was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 28.06.2021 with remarks "payment stopped by drawer".
3. Thereafter, complainant sent a Legal notice dated 15.07.2021 to the accused persons through registered post calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount. It is the case of the complainant that despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
5. Pre summoning evidence affidavit was filed and the cognizance was taken u/s 138 NI Act on 25.11.2021 and summons were issued to accused persons thereupon.
Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:40 +0530
6. Notice was framed against the accused persons on 05.03.2022 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Application u/s 145(2) was orally pleaded and in consideration of no objection, the same was allowed.
7. The AR/ Manoj Anand examined himself as CW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. He has relied upon the documents : -
1. Ex.CW1/1 Company Master Data.
2. Ex.CW1/2 (OSR) Certificate of Incorporation.
3. Ex.CW1/3 Board Resolution.
4. Ex.CW1/4 Invoice dated 29.03.2017.
5. Ex.CW1/5 Invoice dated 29.06.2017.
6. Ex. CW1/6 & Ex.
Transport Receipts.
CW1/77. Ex. CW1/8 Form-C Central Sales Tax
8. Statement from 01.04.2016 to Ex. CW1/9 (Colly) 31.03.2017.
9. Ex. CW1/10 Certificate u/s 65 B IEA.
10. Ex. CW1/11(Colly) Annexure-2B Sales Tax.
Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:44 +0530
11. Ex. CW1/12(Colly) Email dated 18.09.2017.
12. Original cheque in question.
Ex. CW1/1313. Ex. CW1/14 Original Returning Memo.
14. Legal Demand Notice.
Ex. CW1/1515. Ex. CW1/16 to Ex.
Original Speed Post receipts.
CW1/1816. Ex. CW1/19 & Ex.
Returned Envelopes.
CW1/2017. Tracking report.
Ex. CW1/2118. Notice sent through WhatsApp Ex. CW1/22 and Email.
19. Ex. CW1/23 Copy of Gmail dated 16.07.2021.
20. Ex. CW1/24 (OSR) Agreement dated 23.06.2016.
21. Bank statement from 01.02.2018 Ex. CW1/25 (Colly) to 28.02.2018.
8. CW1/AR was examined in chief and cross examined & discharged after examination on 21.10.2023. Closing CE. Matter was listed for SA.
9. The accused no. 1, 2 & 3 were examined and their statement were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.03.2024 Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:47 +0530 after all the incriminating evidence and the documents on record were put to them. Accused no. 1 & 2 had chosen to lead evidence in their defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for DE. However, accused no. 3 chose not to lead any DE.
10. DW1/ Nishant Longani, witness from Indian Overseas Bank was examined in chief, cross examined in part on 26.04.2025 and discharged on 21.05.2025 after further examination.
Accused has relied upon following documents Regarding stop payment in
1. Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) relation to cheques no. 760909 and 760910 dated 31.12.2020.
Application for change of
2. Ex.DW1/2 (OSR) signatures of the partners dated
03.04.2012.
Letter of arrangement of accused
3. Mark X
firm.
During the cross-examination of DW1, Ld. counsel for complainant confronted the witness with the copy of Court Notice Ex. DW1/X1 (OSR).
11. Thereafter, opportunity was granted for calling of other DWs, however the accused side did not exercise the same and constrained thereby the further DE was closed vide order dated Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:51 +0530 02.09.2025 and matter was listed for final arguments.
Subsequently, application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was filed by Ld. counsel for accused for recalling of defence witnesses viz. Record clerk from PS Kotwali and the Ahlmad concerned from the court of Ms. Tricha Rawat, ACJM, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Vide detailed order, the application was allowed subject to cost. However, despite opportunity, again no compliance was done by the accused side and no steps were taken for issuance of the process on summons to said witnesses. Thereafter, matter was proceeded from stage of final arguments.
12. Arguments heard in length from both the parties. The submissions made on behalf of both the parties have been considered.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
13. To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following: -
i. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
ii. the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
iii. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:56 +0530 cheque or within the period of its validity.
iv. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
v. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
vi. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
14. Section 139 NIA mentions the presumption in favor of holder and reads as under:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
Section 139 NIA provides for raising of the presumption when the cheque is received by the holder in lieu of debt/ liability (whole or in part) and the cheque must qualify the requirements laid down in s. 138 NIA. Further, by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar exports v. Sharma carpets(2009) 2 SCC 513, it was made clear that the presumption under s.118 / 139 NIA would arise only when the execution of the cheque or other negotiable instruments as the case may be, is either proved by the complainant or admitted by the accused.
Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:59 +0530 In the present case, the accused persons have vehemently denied their signatures on the cheque in question. They have also denied the issuance of the cheque in favor of the complainant and rather pleaded the case of misplacement of their cheques whereby the same has been misutilised by the complainant by forging signatures of accused no. 2 . Thereby the burden to prove the said fact lies on accused persons by virtue of section 103 IEA.
To prove the same, DW1/Nishant, bank witness from Indian Overseas Bank was called. The witness brought on record Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) which was the letter written by accused firm stating misplacement of the cheque and for stopping the payment thereof. He also brought on record Ex. DW1/2 (OSR), which is the letter written by accused firm for the change of signatures of the partners.
It has been pleaded as defence that the signatures of accused no. 2 were directed to be changed vide Ex. DW1/2 (OSR) and therefore the signatures on the cheque in question does not belong to him. To support the said averment Ex. DW1/2 has been filed to show the specimen signatures of accused no. 2. It is pertinent to note that the said document has been brought on record by the bank witness. Further, it is pertinent to note that the said document does not carry any stamp or seal of the bank and it has been prepared on the letterhead of the accused no. 1 .
Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:02 +0530 Firstly, the witness DW1 failed to show his authority for deposition. Secondly, no official bank record has been brought by the witness to show the specimen signatures of the signatories of accused no. 1 with the records of the bank on the date of issuance of the cheque as Ex. DW1/2 (OSR) is dated in 2012. Moreover, no document has been brought on record to show that pursuant to receipt of Ex. DW1/2 (OSR), what changes were accepted by the bank with regard to signatures of accused no. 2.
Thirdly, accused no. 2 never stepped into the witness box to state that he had not signed the cheque. No specimen signatures have been provided by him till date. He has merely relied upon the testimony of DW1 in this regard. Fourthly, the account number on the cheque in question has been admitted to be belonging to accused no. 1 and the same is also corroborated by Ex. DW1/2 (OSR). Hence, the very requirement of section 138 NIA that "
cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker" has been fulfilled. And the burden lies on the accused persons to show that the cheque in question was never issued in the favor of the complainant. However, apart from mere averment, no explanation has been put forward throughout the trial as to how the cheque in question came into the possession of the complainant. The bringing of such evidence becomes all the more important in view of the mentioning of issuance of cheque in question in Ex. CW1/24 (OSR) by the accused firm in favor of complaint firm. All the accused persons have bluntly denied execution of CW1/24 Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:06 +0530 (OSR), however, have not brought any evidence to corroborate the denial.
Thus, on basis of above, it can be observed that the accused persons have failed to prove that how the complainant got into the custody of the cheque in question. They have further failed to prove that the signatures on the cheque in question does not belong to accused no. 2. However, the cheque in question is proved to be drawn on the account maintained by accused no. 1. In such a situation, the presumption under section 139 NIA lies in favor of the complainant.
15. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused persons to raise a probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recoverable debt arisen in favor of the complainant. As held in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC441,""... facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving contrary".
It is now to be examined as to whether the accused persons have brought any material on record dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.02.19 17:48:09 +0530
16. Accused no. 3 has pleaded the defence that he is not the partner in the accused no.1 and had no information about the transaction in question and accordingly has no liability towards complainant. The same statement was repeated by accused no. 3 at the time of notice framing in section 251 Cr.P.C as well as at the time of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement under section 313 Cr.P.C can only be used to complete chain of circumstances and is not a substantive evidence. However, apart from the statement in section 251 Cr.P.C, accused no. 3 has not brought any defence evidence to prove the said fact.
DW1 appeared on behalf of accused persons and furnished letter of arrangement (Mark X) wherein accused no. 3 can be seen in the list of borrower as well as the guarantor for accused no. 1 . Moreover, reliance has been placed on Ex. DW1/2 (OSR), which does not mention the name of accused no. 3 as partner. Here to reiterate, Ex. DW1/2 does not carry any seal or stamp of the bank and accordingly lacks evidentiary value. Moreover, testimony of DW1 has been challenged as not having any authority for deposition. Apart from that, letter of arrangement though specifically mentions the name of partners in accused no. 1, however the said document does not specifically mention that accused no. 3 is not the partner in accused no. 1. Further, no specific mentioning in this regard can be seen from Ex. DW1/2 (OSR). The relevant document is the partnership deed of accused no. 1 which shall clearly specify the name and details of active Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:12 +0530 partners and as well as the name and details of other sleeping partners and also the details with respect to the promoters, share holders, guarantors. However, despite being in possession of the said material document which is not only crucial for establishment of the defence of accused no. 3 but also essential for proving his liability in accused no. 1 has not been filed on record. The accused persons shall be very well in possession of the said material document but despite that the same has not been filed on record till date. The non furnishing of said material partnership deed cast shadows of doubt in view of the fact that the reliance has been placed on the testimony of bank witness who did not file any official documents of bank bearing seal and stamp and rather produced the documents prepared on the letterhead of accused firm before the Court.
The said situation is coupled with the fact that Ex. CW1/24 (OSR) carries signature of accused no. 3 on behalf of accused no. 1 , however, the execution of Ex. CW1/24 (OSR) has been denied to be executed by accused no. 3. Here, apart from bald and evasive denial, no evidence has been led to rebut or to disprove the probability of execution of Ex. CW1/24 (OSR). Accordingly, in consideration of absence of any evidence, the said fact of denial of execution of Ex. CW1/24 (OSR) has not been proved. Further, no evidence has been brought on record by accused no. 3 that he signed Ex. CW1/24 (OSR) not in the capacity of partner. Hence, the defence of accused no. 3 has not been proved. No clarification Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:15 +0530 has been provided by him with respect to his role in accused no. 1 till date. No documents furnished to show the designation, he is working at in accused no. 1 .
Apart from blunt denial with respect to having no information about the transaction in question, accused no. 3 never stepped into the witness box to corroborate his defences and never filed any evidence on record.
Hence, it can be observed that accused no. 3 has failed to prove himself to be not a partner in accused no. 1 and has failed to rebut the presumption arisen in favor of complainant.
17. Further accused no. 1 and 2 have pleaded that Ex. CW1/24 was never executed and the signatures on the same does not belong to them. Here again, no evidence has been led in this regard. Evasive denial has been done. The case of the complainant is based on documentary evidences, whereby invoices, ledgers and the agreement (Ex. CW1/24) has been filed on record. The said agreement carries signatures of many on behalf of accused firm. To utter surprise, none of the signatories of Ex. CW1/24 has been called in as a witness for deposition to the effect of non-execution of Ex. CW1/24. The witness to the said agreement has not been called ever to depose with respect to the defence of accused persons. No evidence has been led by the accused persons to show the non-existence of probability of execution of Ex. CW1/24, while the case of the complainant sufficiently proves the Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:18 +0530 execution. Moreover, accused no. 1 and 2 never denied existence of legal liability towards complainant. The only defence raised was with respect to non-awareness of the outstanding amount towards complainant. However, here again no evidence has been led on behalf of defence to show the quantum of liability in existence on the date of presentment of the cheque in question.
18. The defence of misplacement of the cheque in question along with the lodging of the police complaint has been pleaded by accused persons. However, despite availability of sufficient opportunities, no evidence brought on record to prove the same. No alleged police complaint brought on record to support defence version. Moreover, no evidence provided as to how complainant got into the possession of the cheque in question. However, Ex. CW1/24 mentions the issuance of the cheque in question by the accused firm in the favor of complainant firm and the said document has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, the plea of misuse of cheque in question by the complainant along with the plea of misplacement of the cheques has also not been proved by defence.
19. In view of the above reasoning, it can be observed that accused no. 3 has failed to prove himself not to be the partner in the accused no. 1 . Accused no. 2 has failed to disprove the signatures on the cheque in question to be belonging to him. Accused no. 1 has failed to disprove the issuance of cheque in question in favor of Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:22 +0530 the complainant. Further accused persons have failed to prove the loss/ misplacement of the cheque in question and has further failed to prove the non-execution of Ex. CW1/24. While the complainant has succeeded in raising a presumption in his favor and has based his case on documentary evidences and has proved the case beyond doubt. While the accused persons have failed to discharge their burden, even on the scale of preponderance of probability and has further failed to rebut the presumption.
20. In consideration of the ingredients of s.138 NIA, it has been proved that the cheque was drawn from the account of accused no. 1 maintained with the banker and the same was dishonored with the remarks 'payment stopped by drawer' and the said subject is covered within the provisions of s.138 NIA. Thereafter, legal notice was issued within the validity period and the receipt therefore has been duly admitted by all the accused persons. Further, the existence of legal enforceable debt has been proved by the complainant by adducing documentary evidences and the present complaint was filed within limitation period. Accordingly, all the ingredients of s. 138 NIA stands duly satisfied. Liability of accused no. 1 proved beyond doubt. Vicarious liability of accused no. 2 & 3 also proved.
21. Hence, accused no. 1/ Ms. Atma Ram Sharma and Sons (partnership firm), accused no. 2 / Ajay Sharma and accused no. 3/ Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:25 +0530 Mukesh Kumar Sharma stands convicted for the offence under section 138 NIA.
22. Let the convicts be heard on quantum of sentence.
23. Let the copy of judgment be provided to convicts free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on 19.02.2026.
Note : This judgment contains 17 pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedSHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.02.19 17:48:29 +0530 (SHIVANGI MANGLA) JMFC (NI Act) -05, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19.02.2026 Ct. Case No 2791/2021 M/s. ASI Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Ram Sharma & Sons Page No. 17 of 17