Delhi District Court
Complainant vs Chhatr Pal on 29 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHHAVI BANSAL
LD. MM (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-03, SOUTH, SAKET COURT
NEW DELHI
RAIS AHMED
S/o Sh. Abdul Salam
S/o E-11/92, first Floor,
New Colony, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
.... Complainant
VERSUS
CHHATR PAL
R/o C-11, Kalu Sarai,
New Delhi-110016
.... Accused
Complainant Case no. 217/2020
CNR No. DLST02-015269-2020
Title Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal
Name of Complainant Rais Ahmed
Name of Accused Chhatr Pal
Date of Institution of Complaint 14.12.2020
Date of Final Arguments 06.08.2022
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment 29.08.2022
Offence Involved Under Section 138 NI Act
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant has filed the present case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") seeking prosecution of the accused regarding the alleged dishonour of the cheque in question issued in discharge of the legal liability of the accused.
2. The Brief Factual Matrix, as per the case of the complainant, is as follows:
Digitally signedCHHAVI by CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2022.08.29 16:35:29 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 1/13 2.1 That the Complainant, a builder and construction contractor, was approached by the Accused and his daughter Gyatri for the purpose of construction and development of the property of the daughter of the accused in October 2019.
The Complainant agreed to develop the property of the daughter of the accused (hereinafter referred to as the "property in question") and the parties entered into an agreement for construction of the said property vide Collaboration Agreement dated 21.10.2019 Ex. CW 1/A. 2.2 That in terms of the Collaboration Agreement Ex. CW1/A, the Complainant paid to the daughter of the accused a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- through two cheques of Rs. 1,25,000/- each, and a further sum of Rs.32,000/- being the rent of four months at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month in respect of the property in question.
2.3 That the construction work of the property in question stopped during the Covid Lockdown in 2020. During the same period, the accused and his daughter approached the complainant and requested for cancellation of the collaboration agreement since the accused and his daughter did not want to get the said property constructed by the complainant. Upon the protest of the complainant to the same, on the ground that the complainant had already spent a large amount of money and resources from his pocket for the construction of said property, the accused agreed to hand over a cheque Ex. CW-1/B for an amount of Rs.4,82,000 to the complainant is respect of his liability towards the complainant.
2.4 That it was agreed between the parties that after the complainant was to receive the said amount of Rs. 4,82,000/- from the accused, the complainant would execute a Cancellation Agreement, otherwise the Collaboration Agreement Ex. CW-1/A shall be considered as continued and final and the complainant would exercise rights as per the Collaboration Agreement. 2.5 That the complainant presented the said cheque Ex. CW-1/B for encashment on 23.08.2020, but the same returned dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide Return Memo dated 24.08.2020 Ex. CW-1/C. 2.6 That the complainant presented the said cheque once again in October 2020, but the same returned dishonoured once again with the same remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 27.10.2020 Ex. CW-1/D. 2.7 That the complainant was constrained to issue a Demand Notice dated 16.11.2020 Ex. CW-1/E to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount. However the accused did not repay the same even after receiving the demand notice through courier and WhatsApp.
2.8 That the complainant filed the present case seeking prosecution of the accused u/s 138 NI Act since the accused did not make payment of the cheque amount even despite receiving demand notice.
Digitally signed by CHHAVICHHAVI BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2022.08.29 16:35:35 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 2/13
3. After the complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and the accused entered appearance on 04.02.2021. On 18.02.2021, Notice u/s 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, "Cr.PC") was framed upon the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the time of framing of notice, accused admitted his signatures on the cheque Ex. CW 1/B but denied having received the demand notice from the complainant. The accused then stated the following in his defence:
" I had handed over a blank cheque to the complainant as a security cheque."
4. As part of Complainant's Evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, and was cross-examined on 04.05.2022. In his cross-examination, the complainant inter alia denied the suggestion that the cheque Ex. CW-1/B was issued by the accused towards payment of the NGT challan dated 20.11.2019. The complainant further stated in his testimony that although the accused handed over a blank cheque to the complainant, said cheque was filled by the complainant in the presence of the accused as well as in the presence of one Sanjay Chauhan and one Mohd. Yakub. The complainant also furnished certain receipts Ex. CW-1/H, Ex. CW-1/I, Ex. CW-1/J, Ex. CW-1/K, Ex. CW-1/L, Ex. CW-1/M, Ex. CW-1/N, Ex. CW-1/O, and Ex. CW-1/P in order to show that he purchased the raw material for the construction of the property in question, and Mark CW-1/Q as the rough account statement for the construction activity regarding said property in question. Regarding the account statement Mark CW-1/Q, the complainant stated that the same had been finalised in the presence of the accused.
5. After the cross examination of the complainant as CW-1, the complainant chose to examine an Executive of DTDC as CW-2 in order to prove that the accused received the demand notice Ex. CW 1/E through courier. CW-2 brought a Certificate of Delivery Ex. CW-2/1 stating inter alia that no proof regarding the service of the demand notice Ex. CW-1/E was available since the consignment in question was old and its records were no longer preserved by the courier company in question. In his cross examination, CW-2 further stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding service of the demand notice Ex. CW-1/E. Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2022.08.29 16:35:39 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 3/13
6. Thereafter, the complainant closed his evidence and the matter was listed for recording of Statement of the Accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, the accused stated that he had given the cheque in question to the complainant for the payment of NGT challan, that the complainant has misused the cheque in question, and that the accused has no liability against the complainant. Vide same statement under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C., the accused opted to lead Defence Evidence.
7. On 25.07.2022, accused examined himself as DW-1 as part of his Defence Evidence.
As part of his examination in chief, accused reiterated that he had given the cheque Ex. CW-1/B to the complainant for the payment of NGT challan brought on record by the accused as Ex.DW-1/1. In his further examination in chief on 28.07.2022, the accused added that the complainant left the construction work regarding the property in question in between without completing the same, and that the accused gave the cheque Ex. CW-1/B to the complainant since the accused received a challan from NGT and the complainant assured the accused that the complainant would pay the NGT challan for the accused. The accused reiterated that he had no liability towards the complainant. In his cross examination on the same day, the accused inter alia agreed that the complainant had given him a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- through two cheques of Rs. 1,25,000/- each after signing of the collaboration agreement Ex.CW-1/A. The accused further stated that the construction work was stopped by the complainant of his own, and that the complainant was responsible for paying any or all the construction challans, including challans by NGT. However, the accused stated in his cross examination that he did not receive any correspondence from the NGT regarding the unpaid challan. The accused further stated that he did not file any complaint against the complainant in connection with the misuse of the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/B. The accused also stated that he was present at the time of final settlement regarding the collaboration agreement Ex.CW-1/A, and also that the complainant showed him the entries made by the complainant regarding the expenses he incurred on the construction of the property in question. Accused finally stated that he did not receive any demand notice from the complainant. Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2022.08.29 16:35:42 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 4/13
8. Accused further examined Sanjay Chauhan as DW-2, who deposed to the fact that the cheque was handed over to the complainant by the accused in his presence, and that the said cheque was handed over in connection with payment of the NGT challan.
9. In the Final Arguments advanced on 06.08.2022, both parties reiterated their central contentions. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that the accused ought to be convicted on the grounds that all the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act stand fulfilled in the present matter, that the defence of the accused that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant to pay the challan of NGT is false, that there is no mention of a "security cheque" in the collaboration agreement Ex. CW-1/A and hence the accused had no reason to hand over the said cheque to the complainant as security cheque, and that the accused has legal liability towards the complainant. The break-up of the cheque amount was also explained in the final arguments as follows: Rs. 2,50,000/- given by the complainant to the accused in connection with the Collaboration Agreement Ex. CW-1/A, Rs. 32,000/- given by the complainant to the accused as rent regarding the property in question and which is also provided for in the collaboration agreement, and around Rs. 2,00,000/- spent by the complainant over the purchase of the raw material for the construction of the property in question.
10. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the accused that the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are not fulfilled in the present case as the complainant has not been able to successfully show that the accused had legal liability towards the complainant since the complainant himself admitted that he was responsible for the payment of construction-related challans and the cheque in question was issued towards the payment of NGT Challan Ex. DW-1/1. It was further argued that, out of the bills and receipts between Ex. CW-1/H to Mark CW-1/Q, some do not bear the date, some do not bear the signatures of the vendor, and none of the receipts mention the GST number of the vendor. It was further argued that when the collaboration agreement Ex. CW- 1/A was in writing, any agreement subsequent to the collaboration agreement also ought to have been in writing. Finally, it was argued that the accused never received the demand notice Ex. CW-1/E. Digitally signed
11. Submissions heard. Record perused. CHHAVI by CHHAVI BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2022.08.29
12. Section 138 of the NI Act reads as under: 16:35:47 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 5/13 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
--Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that 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 that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 19 [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 20 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability"
means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
13. Thus, there are five essential ingredients which ought to be fulfilled to establish culpability for an offence u/s 138 NI Act:-
I. The cheque is drawn by a person on an account maintained by them for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
II. The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; III. 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;
IV. 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;
V. The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.Digitally signed by CHHAVI
CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2022.08.29 16:35:51 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 6/13
14. Moreover, Section 139 NI Act reads as under:
139. Presumption in favour of holder.--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.
15. Section 139 thus raises a crucial presumption in favour of the complainant. In view of Section 139, the burden falls upon the accused to show that the cheque once admitted was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. The contours of Section 139 NI Act have been established in a catena of judgments, and it is no more res integra that Section 139 NI Act casts a reverse onus upon the accused to show that the accused had no liability towards the complainant qua the cheque for which the complainant seeks to prosecute the accused, and that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act is essentially rebuttable in nature.
16. In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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, as noted in State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer [AIR 1958 SC 61 : 1958 Cri LJ 232] it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused." (Ibid. at p. 65, para 14.) 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 possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact.
23. In other words, provided the 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 the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2022.08.29 16:35:55 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 7/13 "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"
[ Section 3, Evidence Act] .
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'." (emphasis supplied)
17. Furthermore, in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Apex Court went ahead to observe as under:
"27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof.
28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities".
Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
18. Thus, in view of the settled position of law as discussed above, the complainant has to establish its case by satisfying the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act, while the accused can dispute the main case of the complainant or discharge its burden by rebutting the presumption codified u/s 139 NI Act. Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2022.08.29 16:35:58 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 8/13
19. In order to satisfy the central ingredient u/s 138 NI Act, i.e. the existence of legal liability, the case of the complainant needs to be examined. The complainant claims a cheque amount of Rs. 4,82,000/- from the accused. Three components are stated to form the total of the cheque liability: the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by the complainant to the accused in execution of Clause 7(ii) of the Collaboration Agreement Ex. CW-1/A, the amount of Rs. 32,000/- paid by the complainant as rent at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month for a period of four months, and around Rs. 2,00,000/- as the overhead construction expenses in the form of purchase of raw material etc. The complainant has furnished a copy of the rough statement of account as Mark CW-1/Q, which was prepared by the complainant under his own hand and was finalised before the accused as stated by the complainant. This fact has been confirmed by the accused too in his cross examination when he stated, "I was present at the time of final settlement regarding the agreement in question." The total sum due and payable by the accused to the complainant as per the said account statement Mark CW-1/Q is Rs. 4,82,411/-, and the amount on the cheque Ex. CW-1/B is Rs. 4,82,000/-. The accused has not disputed the genuineness of the rough account statement or the calculations therein throughout the proceedings. The payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused by the complainant has been categorically admitted by the accused in his cross examination. In the totality of these factors, it can be said that the complainant has been able to establish the existence of legal liability on part of the accused qua the cheque in question.
20. Since the accused admitted to have signed the cheque in question at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C, presumption u/s 139 NI Act operates against him. In order to rebut the said presumption u/s 139 NI Act, the accused sought to bring evidence to support his case that the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/B was given to the complainant for the payment of NGT challan Ex. DW-1/1. At the very outset, a change in the stance of the defence of the accused can be seen between the stage of framing notice and commencement of recording of evidence; the accused stated in his defence to the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C. that he had issued the cheque in question as a security cheque, but the later Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL version of the accused as culled from his Defence Evidence as well as from his BANSAL Date:
2022.08.29 16:36:03 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 9/13 suggestions during Complainant's Evidence was that the cheque in question was issued for the payment of the NGT Challan. Had the accused issued the cheque in question to the complainant towards payment of the NGT challan Ex. DW- 1/1, nothing stopped him from saying so at the stage of framing of notice.
21. The NGT challan in question was furnished by the accused as Ex DW1/1.Perusal of said challan shows that a fine of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed upon the accused through the instant challan for flouting different rules under the NGT Act. The challan Ex. DW-1/1 is dated 20.11.2019, while the cheque Ex. CW-1/B is dated 20.8.2020, pointing at substantial lapse of time between the two relevant dates. Further, the accused has stated in his evidence that the liability to pay the NGT challan was that of the complainant, and the same has also been sought to be highlighted through the relevant clause of the Collaboration Agreement; in such scenario, where the liability of payment of challans is of the complainant, there appears to have been no need for the accused to issue the cheque in question towards the payment of any challan at all. There is thus no congruity in the stand taken by the accused. In his cross examination, the complainant stated that the cheque Ex. CW-1/B was filled in the presence of the accused. There is no categorical denial by the accused in his evidence as DW-1 that the cheque Ex. CW-1/B was not filled in his presence. There is also no suggestion on behalf of the accused that the cheque Ex. CW-1/B was filled by the complainant behind the back of the accused, or that the accused objected to such inflated amount being filled on the cheque, since the NGT challan was for Rs. 20,000/- and the cheque in question was presented in favour of the complainant for Rs. 4,82,000/-
22. It is further pertinent to note that the cheque Ex CW-1/B was presented for encashment twice, and it returned unpaid both times with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Had the cheque in question in fact been misused, there was no reason for the accused to not direct payment to be stopped regarding the said cheque. Furthermore, the accused has himself stated that he has not taken any legal steps in the form of filing a complaint against the complainant regarding the alleged misuse of the cheque Ex. CW-1/B. The conduct of the accused herein does not conform to his story that his cheque was misused so grossly, yet the Digitally signed CHHAVI by CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2022.08.29 16:36:07 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 10/13 accused chose to remain silent and did not take any steps to obtain his cheque back or to proceed legally against the complainant for the said misuse, especially keeping in mind the background that the complainant allegedly unilaterally stopped the construction of the property in question. Moreover, the accused himself deposed in his cross examination that he did not receive any follow up or further correspondence regarding the non-payment of NGT challan Ex. DW- 1/1. This is also rather improbable in the scenario that the challan in question went unpaid.
23. The accused further disputed the receiving of the demand notice issued by the complainant under statutory compliance of Section 138 NI Act. However, guidance may be sought from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe as under:
"...an accused who has not received the legal demand notice cannot claim the benefit of the defence of non-receipt of the same as once summons are served upon him, it is the duty of such an accused to make the payment of the cheque in question within 15 days of receiving summons from the court. Once this option is not availed by him, the benefit of defence of non-service of notice cannot be given to the accused."
In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the accused cannot take the defence of non-receipt of the demand notice to fail the prosecution of the complainant. Furthermore, in the instant case, examination of the courier delivery report Ex. CW-1/F shows that the accused has duly signed the receiving of the consignment in question. Thus, it can be concluded that the accused cannot in any case take the defence that he did not receive the demand notice from the complainant.
24. Coming to the merits of present case after examination of contentions and evidence of both the sides, it is not in dispute that the accused issued the cheque in question to the complainant. It is further not in dispute that the complainant began construction on the property in question, and necessary deduction can be made in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the complainant incurred expenditure on the construction of the said property in question, which the complainant has sought to establish by furnishing different receipts from Ex. Digitally signed CHHAVI by CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2022.08.29 16:36:11 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 11/13 CW-1/H to Ex. CW-1/P. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused in terms of the Collaboration Agreement Ex. CW- 1/A. From a combined reading of the cross examinations of CW-1 and DW-1, it is not in dispute that the account statement Mark CW-1/Q was finalised in the presence of the accused, even though the same does not bear the signatures of the accused. It is not the case of the accused that he has repaid the money which the complainant has claimed by way of the cheque in question. The defence of the accused that the cheque was issued in regard to payment of the NGT challan has not been able to inspire confidence given the shifted stance of the accused between the stage of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and evidence thereafter, the substantial difference between the amount claimed through the cheque in question and the amount of the NGT challan, the substantial time gap between the date of the challan and the date of the cheque, the fact that the cheque Ex. CW-1/B was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds and not due to stoppage of payment, the fact that the accused took no legal steps against the complainant regarding the alleged gross misuse of the cheque in question or to obtain his cheque back from the complainant, and further that the accused himself said that he did not receive any further correspondence from the NGT regarding non-payment of the challan in question.
25. In regard to the other essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act, it can be seen from record that the cheque in question Ex. CW-1/B was presented within three months from the date of issuance viz 20.08.2020, and the same was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" twice vide return memo dated 24.08.2020 Ex. CW-1/C, and return memo dated 27.10.2020 Ex. CW-1/D. The Demand Notice Ex. CW-1/E was issued on 16.11.2020, i.e. within 30 days from the receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque in question. Said Demand Notice is stated to have been delivered to the accused on 19.11.2020 against due receiving by the accused as shown in the courier receipts Ex. CW- 1/F, and the present complaint was filed on 14.12.2020, i.e. within 30 days after the lapse of 15 days since the delivery of the demand notice to the accused.
Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2022.08.29 16:36:15 +0530 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 12/13
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court holds the considered view that all ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are made out against the accused, and that the accused has not been able to prove his defence to the extent of creating a reasonable and probable doubt in the story of the complainant. Thus, Accused Chhatr Pal stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Announced in Open Court on 29.08.2022 Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2022.08.29 16:36:19 +0530 (Chhavi Bansal) MM (NI Act) Digital Court-03 (South) Saket Courts: New Delhi 29.08.2022 CC No. 217/2020 Rais Ahmed v. Chhatr Pal Page No. 13/13