Delhi District Court
Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti Yadav on 27 September, 2025
In The Court of Sh. Divyam Lila, Municipal Magistrate, East, Delhi
JUDGEMENT
DLET020078512017 CT CASE/ 4006/2017:
Date of Filing :18-11-2017 Date of Registration :20-11-2017 Date of Disposal :27-09-2025 ________________________________________________________________ (Complainant): Sh. Rajesh Gupta S/o Sh. Ganga Sahay R/o 8/403, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 Versus DIVYAM LILA (Accused) : Smt. Malti Devi @ Malti YadavW/o Sh. Raj Kumar Digitally signed by R/o 8/326-327, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 DIVYAM LILA (Also at: R/o 7/496, Khichripur, Delhi-110091) Date: 2025.09.27 16:38:25 +0530 _______________________________________________________ Advocate appearing for Complainant: Sh. Sonaram Gupta Advocate appearing for the Accused: Sh. Vivek Bansal Offence punishable under : Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Final Order : Conviction of accused under Section 138 NI Act ________________________________________________________________
-:Index of Judgment:-
1. Introduction:-.................................................................................................. 2
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-................................................................................. 2
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused.............................2
4. Issues for Determination:............................................................................... 3
5. Evidence on Record........................................................................................ 3
6. Legal Position:.................................................................................................7
7. Arguments of the parties:...............................................................................9
8. Analysis and Findings:................................................................................. 13
10. Conclusion and Reason for decision:........................................................ 20
11. Order:...........................................................................................................20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
1. Introduction:-
a. This judgement arises out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") by the complainant against the accused for dishonour of cheque based on the failure of agreement to sell as debt.
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-
a. The case of the complainant in brief is that certain cheques were issued to discharge a legally enforceable liability stemming from a failed property transaction involving an agreement to sell dated April 16, 2015, for property bearing No. 8/326-327, Khichripur, Delhi-110091, for a total consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 20,00,000/- as advance, evidenced by receipts, but the accused failed to execute the sale deed, leading to the issuance of the cheques as a refund.
b. The pertains to the dishonor of two cheques issued by the accused, bearing numbers 199329 dated July 30, 2017, and 199330 dated August 30, 2017, each for Rs. 10,00,000/-, totaling Rs. 20,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Ghazipur Branch, Delhi (hereinafter called as "cheque in question"). The cheques were dishonoured on September 12, 2017, with the remark "Account Closed," followed by a demand notice dated October 6, 2017, which went unanswered and unpaid.
c. Hence, the cognizance in the present matter was taken, and the accused was summoned for the purpose of trial.
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused a. The accused was served notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and pleaded "not guilty".
CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 2/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi b. The accused, in her response to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.,confirmed understanding the notice but denied the allegations. She stated that she did not sign or fill in the particulars of the cheques and was unaware of how the complainant obtained possession of them. She claimed the cheques were usually kept near a stool or table at her home, accessible to the complainant, who was a neighbor and frequent visitor. The accused denied receiving the legal notice and asserted that no legal liability existed towards the complainant.
4. Issues for Determination:
a. The cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.?
b. The cheque was presented within the period of validity of three months?.
c. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.? d. A legal notice was duly served.?
e. The accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period. f. The accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.?
g. Whether the accused no.1 company was struck off and if the same would have any effect liability and outcome of the offence.?
5. Evidence on Record a. Complainant's Evidence:
i. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 by way of affidavit, wherein He testified that he entered into an agreement to sell dated April 16, 2015, with the accused, Smt. Malti Devi @ Malti Yadav, for the CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 3/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi purchase of property No. 8/326-327, Khichripur, Delhi, for Rs. 35,00,000/-. He paid Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash as advance, comprising Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money at the time of agreement execution and Rs. 10,00,000/- in subsequent installments, evidenced by receipts (Ex. CW1/9, colly 6 pages). The accused issued two cheques (No. 199329 dated July 30, 2017, and No. 199330 dated August 30, 2017, each for Rs. 10,00,000/-, Ex. CW1/4 and Ex. CW1/5) to refund the advance when the sale deed was not executed. These cheques were dishonored on September 12, 2017, with the remark "Account Closed" (Ex. CW1/6). A legal demand notice dated October 6, 2017 (Ex. CW1/7), was sent via speed post (Ex. CW1/8, with tracking report Mark A), but no payment was made. Additional documents included the agreement to sell (Ex. CW1/1, colly 4 pages), an initial notice dated July 3, 2017 (Ex. CW1/2, colly 2 pages), and a courier receipt (Ex. CW1/3). In cross-examination, the complainant confirmed knowing the accused for 15-20 years, noting her husband, Raj Kumar Yadav, was a friend of his brother-in-law, Sh. Raju Gupta, and that both families had visiting terms. He reiterated the property deal for Rs.
35,00,000/- and the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash, supported by receipts (Ex. CW1/9). He could not recall the exact date of the earnest money payment and stated the receipts were torn from an old diary he could not produce. The complainant undertook to provide Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the relevant period but failed to do so at the next hearing, prompting the defense to suggest this omission undermined his testimony. The accused's counsel challenged CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 4/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi the authenticity of the documents (Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/3), suggesting they were forged, and alleged the cheques were stolen, referencing a prior complaint by the accused. The complainant denied these suggestions, asserting no knowledge of a theft complaint and affirming the validity of the transaction and documents. No family members of the accused or witnesses (Daljeet Singh or Prince Nagar) were present during the payments, which the defense claimed were fictitious names, a suggestion the complainant rejected. The cross-examination was deferred at one point to allow the defense to review newly filed documents, but no significant contradictions were elicited, and the complainant maintained the deal and cheques were genuine, denying any fabrication or misuse. b. Statement of accused: The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she noted that the complainant, a neighbor who frequently visited her home, could have accessed the cheques. She admitted to closing her bank account after learning of the cheques' loss but could not specify details about the loss, including the exact number of cheques misplaced (estimating four or five) or their particulars, as her police complaint (Ex. DW-1/1) omitted cheque numbers. She denied receiving the legal demand notice dated October 6, 2017, despite it being sent to her address. c. Defence evidence: The accused had given evidence by examining herself as DW-1 and bank witness as DW-2:
i. The accused, testifying as DW-1, stated that she was falsely implicated by the complainant and she denied issuing the cheques in question to the complainant. She claimed the cheques were misplaced or lost from her home, supported by CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 5/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi a police complaint (Ex. DW-1/1). The accused asserted no property transaction or monetary exchange occurred with the complainant for the property bearing No. 8/326-327, Khichripur, Delhi, and she had no liability towards him. In cross-examination, the accused admitted knowing the complainant as a neighbor and confirmed she owned the property in question. She acknowledged being illiterate but capable of signing documents. She could not specify where or how many cheques were lost (estimating four or five) and admitted the lost cheques were signed. She denied any discussions with the complainant regarding the sale of her property for Rs. 35,00,000/- or receiving any advance money. The accused rejected the authenticity of the agreement to sell and payment receipts, claiming her signature was not present on them. She denied receiving the legal demand notice dated October 6, 2017, despite it being sent to her address. The accused could not recall the date of her police complaint for lost cheques and noted it lacked specific cheque numbers. She admitted not filing any complaint against the complainant for alleged cheque theft after learning of their use. She confirmed selling the property through her husband but could not specify the sale amount. The defense's suggestion that her testimony was false to evade a Rs. 20,00,000/- liability was denied.
ii. DW-2: Sh. Umesh Kumar, a bank associate from the State Bank of India, Ghazipur Branch, testified that he produced a copy of the bank account opening form for account number 20004563313 in the name of Malti Yadav, opened on September 14, 2007. The document, marked as Ex. DW-2/A CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 6/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi (colly, 8 pages), was submitted as evidence. The complainant's counsel objected to the document's mode of proof, citing the lack of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In cross-examination, DW-2 confirmed that the account opening form contained the accused's signature, as provided at the time of account opening. The complainant's counsel challenged the authenticity of the documents, suggesting they were forged or fabricated, which DW-2 denied.
6. Legal Position:
a. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the following essential elements must be satisfied as per the judgement in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 954 ,both in the complaint and the evidence presented by the complainant: i. Drawing of the Cheque: The accused must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by them, for the payment of a legally enforceable debt or liability to another person. ii. Timely Presentation: The cheque must be presented to the bank for payment within three months from the date on which it was drawn, or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
iii. Dishonour of the Cheque: The cheque must be dishonoured by the bank due to either insufficient funds in the account or because the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.
iv. Notice of Demand: The payee or holder of the cheque must issue a written demand for payment to the drawer, within 30 CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 7/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi days of receiving information from the bank regarding the dishonour.
v. Failure to Pay: The drawer must fail to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice of demand.
b. Additionally, the provisions of Sections 139 and 118 of the Act further strengthen the case for the complainant. Section 139 creates a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, mandating that the court shall presume, unless proven otherwise, that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability. Section 118, on the other hand, provides that there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument, including a cheque, was made for consideration, and that it was transferred for consideration. c. In the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418;, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 imposes a rebuttable presumption in favour of the complainant, establishing that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused has the opportunity to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting this presumption is based on the preponderance of probabilities. d. The court further held that it is not mandatory for the accused to enter the witness box to prove their defence. They may rely on the evidence presented by the complainant or any other available materials. The onus to rebut the presumption lies on the accused, but it is important to note that this is an evidentiary burden, not a persuasive one.
e. Thus, Section 138 operates on the principle of reverse onus of proof - once the complainant proves the essential elements of dishonour, the burden shifts to the accused to raise a plausible CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 8/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi defence. The presumption of guilt is strong, but not irrebuttable, and the accused is entitled to challenge it through a preponderance of evidence.
f. In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is to be examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumption which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused again on the complainant. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, the accused can either prove the non−existence of the consideration and debt by direct evidence or by bringing on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt either did not exist or their non−existence was so probable that a prudent man may act upon the plea that they did not exist. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.
7. Arguments of the parties:
a. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant: The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the case is squarely covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the accused is liable for the dishonour of the cheque. The CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 9/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi key arguments advanced by the counsel urged the court to convict the accused, are as follows:
i. Valid Issuance of Cheques for a Legally Enforceable Debt:
The accused issued two cheques (No. 199329 dated July 30, 2017, and No. 199330 dated August 30, 2017, each for Rs. 10,00,000/-, Ex. CW1/4 and Ex. CW1/5) to discharge a liability arising from a failed property transaction, as per the agreement to sell dated April 16, 2015 (Ex. CW1/1). The complainant paid Rs. 20,00,000/- as advance, evidenced by receipts (Ex. CW1/9), establishing a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act.
ii. Presumption under Section 139 NI Act Not Rebutted:
Section 139 creates a presumption that the cheques were issued for a valid debt. The accused failed to rebut this presumption, as no substantive challenge was raised against the receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- during the cross-examination of the complainant (CW-1). The accused's silence on the transaction's existence strengthens the presumption of liability.
iii. Consistency and Credibility of Complainant's Evidence: The complainant's testimony (CW-1) is consistent, supported by documentary evidence, including the agreement to sell, receipts, cheques, return memo, and demand notice. Cross-examination by the accused's counsel failed to elicit contradictions or impeach credibility, reinforcing the reliability of the complainant's case.
iv. Unchallenged Signatures on Cheques: The accused did not dispute the signatures on the cheques during trial or cross-examination. The bank witness (DW-2) produced the CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 10/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi account opening form (Ex. DW-2/A), confirming signatures matching those on the cheques, with no patent deviations, establishing that the cheques were issued by the accused. v. Weak and Inconsistent Defense: The accused's claim that the cheques were stolen or misplaced is unsubstantiated. Her police complaint (Ex. DW-1/1) lacks cheque numbers or specific circumstances of loss, rendering it unreliable. Her admission in cross-examination as DW-1 that the lost cheques were signed, without explaining their possession by the complainant, undermines her defense.
vi. No Action Against Alleged Cheque Theft: Despite claiming the cheques were stolen, the accused did not pursue legal action against the complainant after learning of their use, which contradicts her defense. This inaction suggests the cheques were issued voluntarily to the complainant. vii. Admission of Proximity and Opportunity: The accused admitted the complainant was a neighbor with visiting terms, yet failed to provide plausible evidence of how signed cheques were allegedly misused. This supports the complainant's narrative that the cheques were issued as part of a transaction.
b. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the Accused : The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the complainant has failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the case is based on a fabricated narrative to extort money. The key arguments advanced by the counsel, while praying for the acquittal of the accused, are as follows:
i. Denial of Cheque Issuance and Absence of Liability: The accused consistently denied issuing the cheques (No. 199329 CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 11/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi dated July 30, 2017, and No. 199330 dated August 30, 2017, each for Rs. 10,00,000/-, Ex. CW1/4 and Ex. CW1/5) to the complainant. She asserted in her Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement and as DW-1 that she had no liability towards the complainant, as no property transaction or monetary exchange occurred, rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
ii. Cheques Were Misplaced or Stolen: The accused testified that the cheques were misplaced or lost from her home, supported by a police complaint (Ex. DW-1/1). She stated that the cheques were kept near a table or stool, accessible to the complainant, who was a neighbor with frequent visiting terms, suggesting possible misuse or theft. iii. Lack of Specificity in Complainant's Evidence: The complainant failed to provide precise details, such as the exact date of the earnest money payment, and could not produce the diary from which payment receipts (Ex. CW1/9) were allegedly torn. His failure to submit Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the relevant period, despite an undertaking, casts doubt on the source of the alleged Rs. 20,00,000/- payment, weakening his claim of a valid transaction.
iv. Absence of Independent Witnesses: The complainant's testimony lacks corroboration from independent witnesses. He admitted that no family members of the accused or alleged intermediaries (Daljeet Singh and Prince Nagar) were present during the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The defense contends these names are fictitious, and the lack of third-party evidence undermines the complainant's narrative.
CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 12/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi v. Inconsistencies in Documentary Evidence: The defense challenges the authenticity of the agreement to sell (Ex. CW1/1) and payment receipts (Ex. CW1/9), suggesting they are forged or fabricated. The accused denied her signatures on these documents, and the complainant's inability to produce ITRs or other corroborative financial records raises suspicion about their genuineness.
vi. Non-Receipt of Demand Notice: The accused denied receiving the legal demand notice stating the address was correct but the property was sold the previous year. The complainant's reliance on postal receipt does not conclusively prove service, and the defense argues this failure breaks the chain of statutory compliance under Section 138.
vii. Account Closure Precedes Alleged Issuance: The accused closed her bank account after learning of the cheque loss, as confirmed by her testimony and the bank's return memo. viii. Vague Police Complaint Strengthens Defense: While the police complaint (Ex. DW-1/1) lacks cheque numbers, this aligns with the accused's illiteracy and limited ability to document specifics, as admitted in cross-examination. The complaint's existence corroborates her claim of cheque loss, and her failure to include cheque numbers does not negate the defense, given her limited literacy.
8. Analysis and Findings:
a. Issue 1 - Issuance of Cheque: This ingredient pertains to the issuance of the cheque in question itself. The Accused person had in her notice of accusation a denied signature on the cheques in question. In the statement of the accused, the accused remained CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 13/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi silent on the said aspect. The accused made a critical admission during her cross-examination as DW-1 by acknowledging that the cheques in question were signed prior to their alleged loss or misplacement, which undermines her primary defense of non-issuance. Furthermore, the accused failed to put forth any challenge to the authenticity of the signatures on the cheques throughout the trial, including during the cross-examination of the complainant (CW-1) or the bank witness (DW-2), an omission that is strategically detrimental as it effectively concedes the signatures' genuineness, thereby bolstering the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable liability. Additionally, the bank witness, Sh. Umesh Kumar (DW-2), produced the account opening form (Ex. DW-2/A) containing the accused's specimen signature from the account's inception which exhibited striking similarities in style, way of writing, and overall manner to the signatures on the disputed cheques, with no patent departures or discrepancies observable upon visual comparison, serving as corroborative evidence that reinforces the complainant's case by establishing a direct link between the accused and the instruments; this collective failure to contest or disprove the signatures, coupled with the explicit admission of pre-signing; proves that the accused had signed the cheques in question. It is observed that the plea of the accused that the particulars of the cheque in question were not filled by her is of no help; as the signature of the accused on the cheque is not disputed. Reliance can be placed, at this juncture, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Anr. (2008) 102DRJ147, held: "Section 20 NI Act talks of "inchoate stamped instruments" and states that if a person signs and delivers a paper CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 14/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi stamped in accordance with the law and "either wholly blank or have written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument" such person thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof "to make or complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp." "A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the pur- poses of Section 87 NI Act. What, however, is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer." Further, in Bir singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 it was held that:-"It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted." Hence, In the present case, Prima facie the ingredient that the cheque was issued to the complainant has been satisfied as the accused admitted her signature on the cheque and the account being maintained by her. Having admitted the basic ingredient, the presumption is drawn against the accused and now the accused would have to prove that the cheque in question was not issued by him; by way of rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. Whether the accused was able to successfully rebut the adverse presumption is dealt in detail in the issue no. 6;
CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 15/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi However, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant and the presumption is drawn against the accused.
b. Issue 2 - Presentation within Validity: This ingredient stands satisfied on a bare perusal of the cheque in question and the return memo being presented within the period of validity. The cheque is also not dishonoured with the remark "instrument stale"; as the cheque has been returned dishonoured with a return memo noting the reason for return as "Account Closed". The defence has led no evidence to contradict the same and hence, this ingredient stands fulfilled as against the accused. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been proved to be dishonoured within the period of validity.
c. Issue 3 - Dishonour of Cheque: The bank return memo records state that the cheque in question has been returned dishonoured for the reason "Account closed". The defence has led no evidence to controvert the same and hence, this ingredient also stands satisfied as against the accused. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been proved to be dishonoured.
d. Issue 4 - Legal Notice: Service of the legal notice is the legal fiction which constitutes the major ingredient of the offence u/s-138 NI Act. The objective of serving legal demand notice to the Accused before filing the case is to allow the accused to make the payment. As regards the service of legal demand notice, the Complainant has sent the same to the accused. The accused has denied receiving the legal demand notice in his notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C and in the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Sec-281 Cr.P.C. However, the accused has also admitted the address on legal notice being correct, and has also filed bail bonds CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 16/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi having the same address as mentioned on the legal notice. The accused has also not led any positive evidence to prove that the legal notice was not served on her, nor any evidence to prove that the address on the legal notice is correct. Thus, in absence of any evidence against the presumption of service and admission of the accused persons with respect to receipt of the legal notice, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the service of legal notice has been proved.
e. Issue 5 - Non-Payment within 15 Days: In the present case, after the issue no. 4 is against the accused, the case of the accused is that she does not have any liability towards the complainant and his cheque was misused. Hence, it is an admitted position that no payment for the cheque in question was made and thus this ingredient of non-payment within 15 days also stands satisfied. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been proved to be not paid by the accused despite service of notice.
9. Issue 6 : Defence of the Accused and Rebuttal of Presumption: The above ingredients being satisfied, the court would have to look at the defence brought out by the accused by way of cross examination of the complainant's evidence and the rebuttal by way of defence evidence. In the present case, the accused had made following attempts towards rebuttal of the statutory presumption against him; and with the following observations, it is held that the issue no. 6 is decided against the accused and in favour of the complainant:
a. Failure of the accused to challenge the testimony of the complainant: The accused demonstrated a significant failure to effectively challenge the complainant's case during the CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 17/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi cross-examination of the complainant (CW-1), which analytically underscores a strategic or evidentiary shortfall that bolsters the prosecution's position under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by allowing the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 to remain unchallenged. The accused's counsel omitted any suggestion or probing questions regarding whether the accused received the alleged Rs. 20,00,000/- as advance payment for the property transaction, thereby missing a critical opportunity to dispute the foundational element of liability and permitting the complainant's unchallenged testimony to stand as credible evidence of the debt's existence, which in turn weakens the defense's ability to rebut the statutory presumption through affirmative doubt-casting. Additionally, the accused's counsel did not mount any substantive challenge to the alleged property transaction as detailed in the agreement to sell dated April 16, 2015 (Ex. CW1/1), with cross-examination questions notably avoiding exploration of the transaction's existence, its modalities, or intricate specifics such as the agreed total sale price of Rs. 35,00,000/-, the breakdown of installment payments evidenced by receipts (Ex. CW1/9), or the involvement of intermediaries like Daljeet Singh and Prince Nagar, which analytically represents a missed chance to expose inconsistencies or fabricate elements in the complainant's story, thereby leaving the prosecution's chain of events intact and untested. Furthermore, during her own cross-examination as DW-1, the accused exhibited evasive behavior by sidestepping direct questions about the details of the property sale, such as the exact amount for which she sold the property (No. 8/326-327, Khichripur, Delhi) through her husband, providing vague and non-committal responses that analytically suggest an attempt to CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 18/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi obscure potentially incriminating facts or avoid contradictions with the complainant's account, compounded by her inability to furnish particulars about the alleged cheque loss such as omitting specific cheque numbers or circumstances in her police complaint. b. Consistency and Credibility of the Complainant's Evidence:
The complainant's testimony, as recorded in his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and during examination-in-chief and cross-examination, remains coherent, consistent, and believable. No material inconsistencies were drawn out in cross-examination. c. Inconsistencies and Implausibility in the Accused's Defense: The accused's primary defense is that the cheques were stolen or misplaced lacks substantiation and is riddled with inconsistencies. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and as DW-1, she admitted that the lost cheques were signed but could not explain how they came into the complainant's possession. No questions were posed to CW-1 on this aspect despite ample opportunity, which undermines the defense's probative value. The police complaint for lost cheques (Ex. DW-1/1) omits critical details, such as the specific cheque numbers or the circumstances of the loss. This vagueness renders the complaint unreliable as evidence of theft. Additionally, the accused closed the account shortly after the alleged issuance date, which aligns more closely with an intent to avoid encashment than with a genuine loss. In cross-examination as DW-1, the accused admitted to being the owner of the property in question and to knowing the complainant as a neighbor, yet denied any transaction without providing corroborative evidence. Her illiteracy was cited, but she acknowledged the ability to sign, further weakening claims of forgery or non-execution. The defense evidence, including the bank associate's testimony, does not CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 19/ 20 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi contradict the complainant's case and instead supports the authenticity of the signatures.
10.Conclusion and Reason for decision:
a. The Issue no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the complainant and the presumption was drawn against the accused. b. The accused has failed to rebut the presumptions drawn against him and issue no. 6 is decided against the accused. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, including the consistent and credible testimony of the complainant juxtaposed against the accused's inconsistent and unsubstantiated defense of cheque misplacement; this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
11.Order:
a. Accordingly, the accused, Smt. Malti Devi @ Malti Yadav, is held guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
b. The matter shall now be listed for arguments on sentence. c. The signed copy of the judgement be uploaded on the CIS immediately.
d. Pronounced in open court and in presence of both the parties/ or their Counsels.
Digitally (DIVYAM LILA)
signed by
DIVYAM Municipal Magistrate, East District
DIVYAM LILA Karkardooma Court/Delhi
LILA Date:
Date: 27.09.2025
2025.09.27
16:38:39
+0530
___________________________end of the document_____________________ CT CASE/4006/2017 Rajesh Gupta vs Malti Devi @ Malti yadav page 20/ 20