Delhi District Court
Uma Verma vs Raj Kumar on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JMFC (NI ACT-04), WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
(Presided Over by SH. SHUBHAM GUPTA)
Case No. Ct. Cases/2997/2019
Unique Case ID No. DLWT020065262019
In the matter of :-
UMA VERMA
... Complainant
VS.
RAJ KUMAR
... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Uma Verma W/o Sh. Dalip Singh
2. Name of Accused : Raj Kumar
3. Offence complained of or proved : Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of Filing : 26-04-2019
6. Date of Reserving Order : 17-03-2025
7. Date of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025
8. Final Order : ACCUSED IS CONVICTED
Argued by: Sh. D.S. Lakra, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Yashaswi Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 1 of 19
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint has been filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act") by Ms. Uma Verma (hereinafter "complainant")
against Sh. Raj Kumar (hereinafter "accused").
B. The substance of allegations, as contained in the complaint, are as follows:
2. That in the month of October,2018, accused person approached the complainant and
requested for a friendly loan to meet out some urgent financial requirement. That
complainant on request of accused person and keeping in view of the long friendly
relation with the accused person provided loan amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs.
3. The said loan amount was given to the accused person by the complainant with an
assurance from the accused person that the same shall be returned after a period of 1
month.
4. That after passing of 1 month, when the complainant demanded the payment of said
friendly loan from the accused person, the accused person in discharge of his liability
towards the complainant paid Rs. 98,000/-; 10,000/- and 500/- and also issued a cheque
bearing no. 000002 dated 10/11/2018 of Rs. 1,37,800/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Dwarka
with the assurance that said cheque shall be honoured upon its due presentation.
5. That complainant presented the said cheque but the same was returned unpaid in
Nov.2018. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the accused person by the
complainant through telephonic reminder and personal visit and on the request of the
accused, the cheque in question was presented again and was dishonored vide return
memo dated 04.02.2019 with the remarks "Payment stopped".
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 2 of 19
6. Thereafter the complainant through her counsel has served a legal demand notice dated
March 05, 2019 under section 138 of NI Act through registered AD and Speed Post on
March 06, 2019 at the residential address of the complainant.
7. The accused after receiving the notice failed to make the payment of the cheque amount
in question within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice.
8. That the present complaint has been filed within the limitation period and this court has
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
C. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE & NOTICE
9. On January 13, 2021, summons were issued to the accused. Notice against the accused
was framed on April 26, 2023. He took the following plea of defence at the stage of
framing of notice:
"I know the complainant since we used to participate in a committee in which the
complainant was cashier. I have cleared all my committee dues somewhere in April-
May 2018. Thereafter, I received a call from the complainant that she needs some
amount for her personal work. I gave the cheque in question to the complainant for
the same purpose. Thereafter, when the cheque was dishonoured, I transferred
Rs.98,000/- in the bank account of the complainant. I have told the complainant to
return my cheque after it was dishonoured but did not do so. Thereafter, when I
visited Delhi in January 2023, I got to know that the complainant has filed a case
against me. I do not owe any legal liability towards the complainant. The
complainant has filed a false and frivolous case against me."
10. Further, the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but stated that
other particulars were not filled by him. In respect of legal notice, the accused states
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 3 of 19
that he did not receive the above said legal notice and the address mentioned on the
legal notice is not his correct address.
D. COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
11. During the trial, the complainant has led the following oral and documentary evidence
against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
Oral & Documentary Evidence
Ex. CW1/1 - Original Cheque in Question
Ex. CW1/2 - Original Return Memo dated February 04, 2019
Ex. CW1/3 - Deposit slip dated 12.11.2018
Ex. CW1/4 - Legal Notice dated March 05, 2019
Ex. CW1/5 - Original Postal Receipts
Ex. CW1/6 - Postal Tracking Report
Ex. CW1/7 - Postal Tracking Report
E. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to
personally explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, his statement
under Section 313 CrPC was recorded without oath. In reply, the accused denied all the
allegations against him. The accused submitted the following in his statement under
section 313 CrPC:
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 4 of 19
A. I know the complainant since 2015. I did not approach the complainant in
October 2018 for a friendly loan. The complainant did not give me any loan
amount for a period of one month.
B. The cheque belongs to my account and bears my signatures . The other particulars
were not filled by me.
C. I had already paid the amount to the complainant. Hence, I stopped the payment
of the cheque.
D. I did not receive legal notice. The residential address mentioned on the legal
notice is not mine. I never resided on the said address at any point of time. The
complainant was not aware of my address.
E. I used to participate in a committee and the complainant was a cashier of the said
committee. After settling the accounts, the complainant told me that Rs.
1,37,800/- is due towards her. I had given the cheque in question to the
complainant with the condition that she will present it on a date told by me.
Thereafter, I had made payment to the complainant. I sent Rs. 500 to her to check
whether the online account belongs to her and whether she receives the said
payment or not. Thereafter, I sent 98,000/- to her and I have also paid the
remaining amount in cash to her. Rs. 10,000 cash were paid in the first instance
and the remaining amount was paid in small tranches. The aforesaid payments
have been made by me after the dishonour of cheque. I became aware about the
present case in December 2022. I do not owe any legal liability towards the
complainant. The complainant has filed a false and frivolous case against me.
F. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 5 of 19
13. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be pertinent to discuss the
legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the
offence, as highlighted below:-
13.1 The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for
payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3
months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
13.2 The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable
debt or other liability;
13.3 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;
13.4 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.
13.5 The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen
days from the date of receipt of notice.
14. In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to
be fulfilled.
G. ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. As regards the first ingredient, the complainant has proved the original cheques,
Ex.CW1/1, which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on the account of the
accused. He has also admitted his signatures on the cheque.
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 6 of 19
16. As regards the second ingredient, the cheque in question was returned unpaid vide Ex.
CW1/2. The same has also been proved by the complainant. As per Section 146 of NI
Act, Bank's slip is prima facie evidence of proof of dishonor. The accused has not
disputed the same.
Contention: - The complainant sent the legal notice on the incorrect address
17. As regards the third ingredient, the complainant has stated in her complaint that the
legal notice Ex. CW1/4 was sent on the residential address of the accused. However,
the accused since the time of his appearance in the present matter has consistently taken
a plea that the legal notice was not received by him and the address mentioned on the
legal notice is his incorrect address and he never resided at the address mentioned on
the legal notice. The same has been stated by the accused at the time of notice framing,
recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement and at the time of leading DE.
18. The tracking report Ex. CW1/6 indicates that the delivery of the legal notice to the
accused was made in due course. Perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant
by the accused reveals that no question has been put to the complainant in respect of the
legal notice sent on the alleged incorrect address. Neither anything was put to the
complainant in respect of the source or basis of the address mentioned in the legal
notice. Under section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant is obligated to dispatch the
legal notice to the "correct address" of the accused. While the accused contends that
the address was incorrect, his omission to challenge the complainant's knowledge or
the means of ascertaining the address during the cross-examination is fatal to his case.
Cross-examination is the accused's primary opportunity to test the veracity of the
complainant's assertions, including the basis for the address used. By not raising this
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 7 of 19
issue, the accused has effectively allowed the complainant's version that the notice was
sent to a valid address. The accused's silence during cross-examination leaves no
material to conclude that the complainant acted recklessly or maliciously in mentioning
the address on the legal notice which is stated to be duly served on the accused vide
tracking report.
19. While the return of the court process (summons/warrants) with the remark that "the
accused does not reside here" creates some ambiguity, however, it does not
retroactively invalidate the delivery of the legal notice. Postal authorities may have
delivered the notice to an occupant, agent or even the accused himself, who might have
subsequently left the premises. The accused's evasion of the court process does not
equate to the address being incorrect at the time of the notice's dispatch. Without
challenging the complainant's basis for the address during the cross-examination, the
accused cannot exploit this ambiguity to his advantage. Furthermore, the accused has
failed to adduce corroborative evidence during DE such as proof of residence
elsewhere, alternate addresses etc. to substantiate his claim of address being incorrect.
20. Additionally, upon the issuance of the process against the accused under section 82
Cr.P.C. a statement was recorded by the process server of the relative of the accused
wherein that relative stated that he does not have any information about the address of
the accused and the accused was residing somewhere in Dwarka and he sold his
Dwarka Flat 4-5 years ago and the address mentioned on the legal notice is also that of
a flat in Dwarka, New Delhi.
21. Further, during cross-examination, a suggestion was given to the accused in respect of
the receipt of the legal notice as the same was sent to the correct address by the
complainant. The said suggestion was denied by the accused. Hence, in the absence of
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 8 of 19
any cross-examination of the complainant and considering tracking report which
indicates the delivery of the legal notice to the accused at a Flat in Dwarka, the stand
taken by the accused in respect of the legal notice being addressed to the incorrect
address is a self-serving statement and devoid of any merit. The legal notice addressed
to the accused at Dwarka address which is last known address of the accused to the
complainant coupled with the tracking report indicating due delivery, and by virtue of
presumptions u/s 27 of General Clauses Act read with Section 114 Indian Evidence
Act, the legal notice is presumed to be served upon the accused. Further, in CC Alavi
Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that " Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice
sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the
complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the
court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a
copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be
rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the
court alongwith the copy of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously
contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s. 138, by ignoring
statutory presumption to the contrary u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section
114 of the Evidence Act".
22. Hence, a mere assertion without supporting material, cannot override the statutory
presumption of service.
23. Further, the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is
also not disputed. As such, on the basis of the above, the first, third, fourth and fifth
ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved against the accused.
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 9 of 19
24. The rest of the controversy in the present complaint case pertains to second ingredient.
PRESUMPTIONS UNDER NI ACT
25. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant is required to
prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally
enforceable debt. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature
on the cheque in question, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of
onus on the accused.
26. The combined effect of section 118(a) NI Act and section 139 of the NI Act is that a
presumption exists that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the
accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath
Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:
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 vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AR 1958 SC 61, 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). 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
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 10 of 19
that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
27. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court, having analysed all the concerned provisions in
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 at page
432, came down to the following conclusion:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on
Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court
in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of theAct mandates a
presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus
is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the
presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led
by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in
order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by
reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support
of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive
burden.
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 11 of 19
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his
defence."
28. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010)
11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes
the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt.
29. In order to discharge the aforesaid burden, it has been contended by learned counsel for
the accused that there are inherent inconsistencies in the version of the complainant, as
listed below, which lead to a probable defence in favour of the accused:
Contention: The Complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan amount
in question
30. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant alleges that she advanced a
sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to the accused. However, she has failed to produce any
documentary evidence or independent witness to substantiate her claim. Furthermore,
the complainant has admitted that she works alongside her husband who is a tailor and
their combined monthly earnings range between Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 25,000. Further, it
was submitted that despite such monthly earnings, the complainant was unable to
provide any reasonable explanation as to how she was able to accumulate such a large
sum of money for the purported loan.
31. It is a settled position of law that showcasing that complainant did not have adequate
financial capacity to lend money to the accused amounts to a probable defence and can
help in rebutting the presumption that is accrued to the benefit of the complainant in
cheque dishonour cases. The relevant case laws in this regard have been reproduced
hereunder for reference:
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 12 of 19
(a) In Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 : AIR 2019 SC 1983, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
During his cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs. 6 lakhs to the accused
was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant. The evidence
on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the
burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts" . (emphasis
added)
(b) In APS Forex Service Private Limited v. Shakti International Fashion
Linkers : AIR 2020 SC 945, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified and explained the
issue as follows:
Now so far as the reliance is placed by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused on the decision of this Court in the case of Basalingappa (supra), on going
through the said decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any
assistance to the accused. In that case before this Court, the defence by the accused was
that the cheque amount was given by the complainant to the accused by way of loan.
When the proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the accused
denied the debt liability and the accused raised the defence and questioned the financial
capacity of the complainant. To that, the complainant failed to prove and establish his
financial capacity. Therefore, this Court was satisfied that the accused had a probable
defence and consequently in absence of complainant having failed to prove his
financial capacity, this Court acquitted the accused. In the present case, the accused
never questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. We are of the view that
whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in
support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.
Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is
rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial
capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his
financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and
thereafter issuance of a cheque. (emphasis added)
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 13 of 19
(c) The crux of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
summarized by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Sunitha v. Sheela Antony, 2020 SCC
OnLine Ker 1750
In my view, the crux of the decisions referred to above is the following :
The complainant has no obligation, in all cases under Section 138 of the Act, to prove
his financial capacity. But, when the case of the complainant is that he lent money to
the accused by cash and that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of the liability,
and if the accused challenges the financial capacity of the complainant to advance the
money, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the complainant has the
obligation to prove his financial capacity or the source of the money allegedly lent by
him to the accused. The complainant has no initial burden to prove his financial
capacity or the source of the money. The obligation in that regard would arise only
when his capacity or capability to advance the money is challenged by the accused.
(emphasis added)
32. It has been held in the case of Kulvinder Singh v. Kafeel Ahmad 2013 SCC OnLine
Del 34 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan
2008 (1) SCC 258 that acquittal is proper on prosecution in complaints under section
138 of NI Act, 1881 where complainant is not able to show the source of friendly loan
or solvency for the same. In other words, it was held that presumption of cheques gets
dislodged where complainant is not able to give source of the amount loaned to
accused.
33. Extract of the cross-examination of the complainant is as follows: -
"...I am a seamstress and I work along with my husband. He is a tailor as well. I
earn Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month..."
Perusal of the aforesaid cross-examination on the point of financial capacity of the
complainant would reveal that the complainant was never asked question on the point
of the source of the funds. Neither the cross examination was centered on the income
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 14 of 19
of the complainant at the relevant time of the transaction in question. The argument of
the accused that the total monthly income of the complainant and her husband was Rs.
15,000/- to 25,000/- is devoid of any basis. No questions were put to the complainant
in respect of the family income, tax returns if any. Hence, the accused's failure to
challenge the complainant's financial capacity during cross-examination- by
questioning savings, familial support, tax returns or alternate income sources- renders
the claim of the accused qua financial incapacity at the final arguments stage
inadmissible. Unless, the financial capacity of the complainant was challenged during
cross-examination, the complainant is not under any obligation to the prove the same
since the presumption under the NI Act is in her favour. Hence, the contention of the
accused in respect of the financial incapacity of the complainant is devoid of any merit.
Contention III - The transaction in question was a committee transaction and not a loan
transaction
34. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the transaction in question was a committee
transaction (chit fund transaction) and not a loan transaction perse and the accused had
already paid the entire amount of the settlement qua the chit fund transaction to the
complainant. Further, it is submitted that the accused made the payment to the
complainant after the dishonour of the cheque for the first time.
35. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the
accused has not been able to prove the transaction in question as a committee
transaction and it is merely an afterthought in order to evade his liability.
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 15 of 19
36. It is to be noted that at the stage of framing of notice under section 251, the accused
took the following plea of defence: -
"I have cleared all my committee dues somewhere in April-May 2018. Thereafter, I
received a call from the complainant that she needs some amount for her personal
work. I gave the cheque in question to the complainant for the same purpose.
Thereafter, when the cheque was dishonoured, I transferred Rs.98,000/- in the bank
account of the complainant."
At the notice framing stage, the accused has submitted that he had already cleared his
committee dues in the month of April-May, 2018 and the cheque in question was issued
to the complainant in order to meet the requirement of the complainant for her personal
work. At that stage, accused did not contend that the cheque was issued for the
payment of the settlement of the committee dues. However, at the stage of the
recording of section 313 statement, the accused specifically took a different plea of
defence and claimed that the cheque in question was issued for the payment of the
committee due after settling the account with the complainant. And the same plea was
taken by the accused at the stage of DE also. However, the complainant throughout the
trial has consistently denied the transaction in question as a committee transaction and
claimed that friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000 was given to the accused and in furtherance
of the part payment, the cheque in question was issued.
37. The accused has not led any evidence to prove that the transaction in question was that
of a committee transaction. Neither any payment receipts, nor any documentary or oral
evidence is led in this regard. Further, the accused has neither provided the list of the
members of the alleged committee being run by the complainant nor took any steps to
summon those members of the alleged committee. Further, the stand taken at the notice
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 16 of 19
framing stage in respect of the plea that the dues were completely settled in the month
of April-May, 2018 and the stand taken at section 313 Statement and DE that the
cheque in question was issued by him for settling the dues of the committee goes on to
undermine the credibility of the accused and the plea of defence taken by him. Further,
in the absence of any proof on record, mere denial or self-serving statements at various
stages of the trial are insufficient to rebut the presumption existing in favour of the
complainant.
38. Further, the plea of the accused that complainant has herself admitted the major portion
of the cheque amount in question being received by her after the dishonour of the
cheque in question and hence the present complaint case must be dismissed. As
discussed above, the accused has take two mutually contradictory plea of defence at the
framing of notice and at the stage of section 313 statements and leading DE, it fails to
inspire the confidence of the court. At one stage accused takes the plea that the amount
was advanced by him to the complainant for her personal work and he does not owe
anything to her since the dues are already settled by him in April-May, 2018, on the
other hand, he takes the plea that he had handed over the cheque in question to the
complainant for settling the dues of the committee and did not produce any evidence of
the same either in the form of any transaction receipts for the committee transactions.
Neither any witness was called who was part of such committee as alleged to be
organized by the complainant.
39. Further, the accused has stated to be not taken any legal steps in order to prevent the
alleged misuse of the cheque in question by the complainant. It is difficult to believe
the version of the accused that despite owing nothing to the complainant, no action was
taken by him against the complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque in question.
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 17 of 19
The inconsistent and contradictory stand of the accused at various stages of the trial
does not inspire the confidence of this court.
40. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the presumption against him cannot be
rebutted in casual manner.
Conclusion
41. In conclusion, I am of the view that accused has not been able to raise probable defence
in the present case.
42. Accordingly, in light of the scheme of the NI Act, a statutory presumption exists in
favour of the complainant. The statutory presumption cannot be rebutted in such a
casual manner. There must be something concrete on record to rebut the same.
43. Hence, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion
is that the accused has failed to rebut the onus put on him by virtue of the presumptions
enshrined in Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Therefore, the second ingredient also
stands proved against the accused.
44. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in
establishing his case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had issued the cheque in
question in discharge of his legally enforceable liability. The presumptions under
Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act were drawn against the accused. The accused
has miserably failed to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence.
45. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the accused, Sh. Raj
Kumar is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
46. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 18 of 19
47. This judgment bears 19 pages and each page bears my signatures. Judgment be
uploaded on the website forthwith.
Pronounced in open court.
Digitally signed
ORDER :- ACCUSED IS CONVICTED by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
Announced in the Open Court on 20.05.2025. 2025.05.20 18:50:40 +0530 (SHUBHAM GUPTA) JMFC(N.I.Act)-04/West, THC/Delhi/20.05.2025 CC No. 2997/2019 Uma Verma Vs. Raj Kumar Page No. 19 of 19