Delhi District Court
Manoj Shishodia vs Shri Jayanta Ghorai on 15 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARCHITA GARG,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)-06,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
DLST020383392024 CC NI Act 7467/2024 PS : Hauz Khas Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Shri Manoj Shishodia, S/o Late Shri H. S. Shishodia, R/o C-5, Nakshatra Apartments, 1065/7, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 ..............Complainant Versus Shri Jayanta Ghorai, Digitally S/o Late Shri Tarani Ghorai, signed by archita R/o House No.4922, Gali no.40, archita garg Near Khalsa Collage, Raighar Pura, garg Date:
2025.12.15 16:53:21 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 +0530 Also at:
House No.40/4913, Near Khalsa Collage, Raighar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ............ Accused Date of registration : 12.09.2024 Date of Judgment : 15.12.2025 Decision : Conviction CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.1 of 13 FACTS
1. The instant proceedings have originated out of a complaint filed by complainant Mr. Manoj Shishodia against accused for recovery of the cheque amount for the offense under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act").
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and accused executed a consultancy/retainer agreement on 1st August, 2023 under which the complainant was to provide legal and consultancy services at a monthly fee of Rs.72,000/-. The complainant states that he rendered services regularly to the accused from August 2023 to July 2024, including in a criminal case of the accused, but no payments were made despite repeated requests.
3. The complainant asserts that although monthly invoices archita were raised, the accused continuously delayed payment on the garg pretext of keeping the invoices safe for later settlement. After Digitally signed by archita garg persistent follow-ups, the accused issued two cheques, both dated Date: 2025.12.15 16:53:34 +0530 16 July 2024 for Rs.72,000/- each towards the consultancy charges for August and September 2023.
4. When the complainant presented the cheques, they were returned dishonoured on 30th July 2024 with the remark "payment stopped by drawer." The complainant immediately contacted the accused, but the accused did not clear the dues and only offered false assurances. A statutory legal notice dated 12 th August 2024 was served on the accused demanding payment of CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.2 of 13 Rs.1,44,000/- within 15 days, but no payment was made. Instead, the accused sent an allegedly false reply on 3 rd September 2024.
The complainant maintains that the cheques were presented within the statutory period and dishonoured, and the accused failed to pay even after receipt of notice.
5. Despite service of legal demand notice, the accused neither tendered payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period nor furnished any reply. The accused issued the impugned cheque with dishonest intention and has rendered himself liable to prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, the present complaint.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND TRIAL
6. The complainant was examined on oath. After perusing the archita complaint and documents annexed with it, Ld. Predecessor took garg cognizance and summons were issued to the accused on Digitally signed by archita garg 18.11.2024. The accused appeared before the Court on Date: 2025.12.15 16:53:42 +0530 16.01.2025. Since, the offense u/s 138 NI Act is bailable, accused was admitted to bail.
7. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon him and explained to him on 16.01.2025. He pleaded not guilty and stated that he had approached the complainant for a loan in July 2023. However, he did not receive the loan amount. The complainant told him about the loan scheme "Pradhan Mantri Mudra Loan". The complainant took three blank signed cheques including the cheque in question from him along with certain other documents for the purpose of the said loan. After 15 days, CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.3 of 13 the complainant came to him and asked him to put his signatures on 15-18 blank papers. He also took Rs.20,000/- in cash from him. The accused denied having any liability towards the cheque in question and admitted the receipt of legal notice.
8. Considering the defence proffered by the accused, the matter was tried as a summons case. Accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant u/s 145 (2) NI Act. Matter was listed for CE.
9. In support of his case, the complainant had filed evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.CW1/A which reiterated the contents of the complaint. He relied upon the following documents:
(A) Copy of retainership agreement as Ex.CW1/1 (OSR).
(B) Two cheques as Ex.CW-1/2 (Colly).
(C) Return memo as Ex.CW1/3.
(D) Legal Demand Notice as Ex.CW1/4.
archita (D) Receipt of Speed Post as Ex.CW1/5 (Colly).
garg
Digitally signed 10. Accused was examined without oath u/s 313 Cr.P.C on by archita garg Date: 2025.12.15 04.07.2025 and all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He 16:53:50 +0530 reiterated that the complainant had approached him for providing a loan and asked him to sign on certain blank papers. He never took any loan from the complainant. When the complainant approached him for the second time, he asked for five blank signed cheques from the accused. He denied having any liability towards the cheque in question.CT Case No. 7467 of 2024
Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.4 of 13
11. He did not wish to lead defence evidence in support of his case. DE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 28.10.2025.
ARGUMENTS
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the accused was legally liable to compensate the complainant for his consultancy services. The accused failed to honor the financial transaction between the parties despite repeated requests by the complainant. The cheques issued by the accused were returned dishonored and he failed to pay within 15 days of receiving legal demand notice, thus, the conditions of section 138 of NI Act stood satisfied. As the accused failed to raise a probable defence, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act has not been rebutted. He concluded his arguments stating that all statutory compliances u/s archita 138 NI Act are fulfilled, therefore, the accused is liable to be garg Digitally signed convicted.
by archita garg Date: 2025.12.15 16:53:57 +0530
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused denied the accusations of the complainant. He argued that the present cheque was issued in connection with a proposed Pradhan Mantri Mudra Loan which never materialized, and was later misused by the complainant. The defence of the accused is majorly premised on the various inconsistencies in the case of the complainant: the complainant's failure to show record of legal services provided, the irregularities in the documents furnished and the concealment of relevant documents. Ld. Counsel for the accused concluded his arguments stating that the cheques in question have been CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.5 of 13 misused and there exists no legal liability for the amount mentioned on the cheques, therefore, he prayed that the accused ought to be acquitted.
LEGAL POSITION
14. The requirements which need to be fulfilled by the complainant as per Section 138 are the following -
i) The accused issued a cheque on a bank account maintained by him;
ii) The said cheque must have been issued, wholly or partly, in discharge of a 'legal debt or other liability';
iii) The said cheque was presented before the bank within 3 months from the date of issuance and was dishonored;
iv) The payee issued a legal demand notice, within 30 days of receipt of information of dishonor of the cheque; archita v) The drawer failed to make payment within 15 days of garg receipt of the said legal demand notice;
Digitally signed by archita garg Date: 2025.12.1516:54:04 +0530 15. Further, the NI Act raises two important legal presumptions in favor of the holder of the cheque as soon as the execution of cheque is proved. As per Section 118(a), NI Act, it shall be presumed that every negotiable instrument was 'made, accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed for consideration, unless the contrary is proved'. Furthermore, as per section 139, NI Act, it shall be presumed that 'the holder of cheque, received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved.' CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.6 of 13
16. The aforementioned presumptions were elucidated down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 held as follows:
(i) 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.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defense. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defense. 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.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defense, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
archita APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE and FINDINGS garg 17. At the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C, the Digitally signed accused has admitted issuance of cheque and his signatures on by archita garg Date: 2025.12.15 the cheque in question. As discussed above, it is an established 16:54:12 +0530 law that once the signatures/issuance of cheque is admitted, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act raises in the favor of the complainant that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the present case, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Therefore, as per the established law and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act arises in favor of the complainant. The burden of proof is upon the accused to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption against him.
CT Case No. 7467 of 2024Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.7 of 13
18. The accused raised his defence on the multiple grounds which have been discussed hereinafter.
Absence of Legally Enforceable Debt
19. On the first point of the defence, the accused has stated that he is not liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant as the complainant has failed to produce any document or work- related correspondence to demonstrate that he rendered any legal consultancy services to the accused. To reiterate the legal position, once the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act arises in favor of the complainant. The burden of proof is upon the accused to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption against him. Thus, the proposition that the complainant is required to produce the correspondence with respect to the archita consultancy services rendered in the first instance to prove the garg legal liability of the accused is misconceived.
Digitally signed by archita gargDate: 2025.12.15 20. Now it was upon the accused to seek production of these 16:54:22 +0530 documents from the complainant during cross-examination of the witness. During cross-examination of complainant/CW1, no such document was sought to be produced on record. The details sought during cross-examination have been furnished by the witness. He was not confronted with any documents to disprove his claims regarding litigation against the accused. Even when it was suggested to the witness that he has made a false submission regarding consultancy services in another cheque bounce matter against the accused, no document was produced to falsify claims CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.8 of 13 of the complainant.
21. It is well settled that the accused is not expected to lead negative evidence to disprove existence of consideration. While explaining the burden of proof upon the accused to dispel presumption given under section 118(a) of the NI Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35 held as under:-
"...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 no contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its nonexistence archita was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act.; upon the plea that it did garg not exist..."Digitally signed by archita garg
Date: 2025.12.15 22. As observed in the aforesaid judgment, for substantiating 16:54:29 +0530 plea of non-existence of consideration or there being no liability at all, appellant is required to bring some material or had to demonstrate hollowness in the case of complainant. Mere bald and unsubstantiated assertions shall never be sufficient to disprove the presumption. In the instance case, mere statement of the accused regarding non-existence of liability without bringing some material on record or showing the improbability in the case of the complainant does not prove the defence of the accused.
23. It is further contended that the complainant did not CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.9 of 13 produce any document showing that there was any correspondence between the complainant and the accused when the accused failed to make payment towards the retainership agreement for the services of the complainant. However, during cross-examination, the complainant has clarified that he called the accused and visited his office on multiple occasions. The above conduct of the complainant does not raise any doubts on his claims.
24. At present, the accused has not been able to disprove the genuineness of the retainership agreement or the fees memo filed archita by the complainant. Further, even though, the accused has stated garg that the complainant failed to procure the loan as promised, the Digitally signed by archita garg above defence has not been proved by the accused by way of any Date: 2025.12.15 cogent evidence. There is no averment by the accused that he 16:54:35 +0530 ever sought the return of the documents- the postdated cheques or the signed blank papers when the loan was not disbursed to him. Even if, the cheques were allegedly misused by the complainant, the accused has not filed any record of the police complaint or any other action taken by him. The conduct of the complainant in misusing the cheques in question was never reported despite the breach of trust by the complainant. There is no correspondence with the complainant to prove that the cheques were ever demanded back by the accused. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the accused has not been able to establish his defence of non-existence of legal liability.
Suppression of Material Document
25. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused on that the CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.10 of 13 complainant had withheld the reply to the legal notice from the court and therefore, did not approach the court with clean hands. It is stated that such suppression of material document indicates the falsity of the claims of the complainant.
26. Despite the claims of the accused that the non-production of the vital document amounts to deliberate suppression of material evidence and if produced such document would have clearly demonstrated the improbability of the complainant case, the reply to the legal notice has not been brought on record by the archita accused. Further, the complainant has already mentioned at para garg no.14 of his complaint that in reply to the legal demand notice, Digitally signed by archita garg the accused had sent a false reply to the complainant. Thus, the Date: 2025.12.15 above fact was already brought notice of the Court in the first 16:54:43 +0530 instance and therefore, the non-production of such document cannot tantamount to suppression of material document. The production of the same could have been requested by the accused during cross-examination of the complainant witness. The defence of the accused regarding suppression of relevant document cannot, thus, be accepted.
Simultaneous Execution of Agreements:
27. It is further the case of the accused that the conduct of the complainant is itself suspicious as the present retainership was executed on the same day as the loan agreement. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that as multiple documents have been executed in quick succession, the possibility of misuse of documents executed in haste cannot be ruled out. It is further CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.11 of 13 contended that no rational person would be taking a loan and simultaneously executing a retainership agreement as in the present case.
28. The above contention seems to be a mere conjecture by the accused. Certainly, there is no bar to executing two documents- loan document and retainership agreement on the same date. The above contention seems to be a mere conjecture by the accused and does not render the complainant's claim improbable by itself.
29. The accused had taken his plea of defense and sufficient archita time and opportunities were given to the accused to prove his garg case, but he has failed to do so. He has just made generic denials Digitally signed by archita garg and statements regarding the validity of the retainership Date: 2025.12.15 16:54:50 +0530 agreement which he himself had accepted through his signatures on the document. He has also failed to produce evidence regarding his claims of misuse of his cheque given for obtaining loan. There is no proof of correspondence etc. between the parties regarding the proposed loan or the demand for return of cheque.
30. The accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and as per the established law, he was supposed to raise a probable defense. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Jain (supra), if the accused fails to rebut the presumptions against him, the court can straightaway proceed to convict him subject to other ingredients of the offense. The cheque in question was dishonored due to 'Funds insufficient'. The legal CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.12 of 13 demand notice was sent on 07.08.2024. The accused failed to pay within 15 days of the receipt of the notice or within 15 days of receiving the summons as discussed in C.C Alavi Haji (supra).
31. Thus, on account of the appreciation of facts, evidence, materials on record and the settled legal position as discussed above, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused has failed to raise a probable defense and the complainant has successfully proved his case with the aid of legal presumptions in his favor. The accused is held guilty. Consequently, accused Jayanta Ghorai is hereby convicted for the offense punishable u/s 138 NI Act qua the cheque in the present case.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
This Judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears the signature of Ld. Presiding Officer.
A copy of the judgment be uploaded on the District Courts website.
Pronounced in the open Court today i.e. on 15.12.2025.
Digitally signed archita by archita garg Date: garg 2025.12.15 16:54:59 +0530 (Archita Garg) JMFC (NI Act)-06/South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/15.12.2025 CT Case No. 7467 of 2024 Shri Manoj Shishodia Vs. Shri Jayanta Ghorai Page No.13 of 13