Delhi District Court
R P Foam Home P Ltd vs Bhagwati Sles Corp on 20 May, 2026
THE COURT OF Ms. RAVISHA SIDANA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06, NI ACT, CENTRAL
DELHI
CC NO.9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 and 9140/2017
M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD.
1, Gandhi Sqare, Malka Ganj,
Delhi-110007,
Branch office at
4415, Gali Bahoji,
Pahari Dhiraj
Delhi-110006
(Through its authorized representative). ........ Complainant
vs.
1.BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, Plot no.16, Nishant Bagh Colony, Village Bhatia, Ludhiyana Punjab.
2. SH. VIKAS KWATRA (PRINCIPAL OFFICER BHAGWATI) Sales Corp./Signatory of the cheque H.No.139, Dream Lane, Habowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-141007 ........ Accused Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2026.05.20 16:37:05 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 1 OF 20
a) Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable or proved Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)
b) Plea of Accused Not Guilty
c) Date of Reserving Order 17.04.2026
d) Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026
e) Final Order ACQUITTED Argued by :-
Ld. counsel for the complainant Sh. Deepak Sharma. Ld. counsel for the accused Sh. Rajesh Bagga.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Vide this common judgement, three connected cases bearing CC no. 9098/2017, 9012/2017, 9138/2017 and 9140/2017. are being disposed of as they arise out of the same transaction.
2. Briefly, it is the case of the complainant that complainant is represented through authorized representative and runs a business of manufacturing and sales of flexible polyurethane foam and its allied products and accused no.2, through accused no.1, used to purchase the said goods, on credit basis. After being satisfied about the quality of products, the accused to make payment, through cheques at the head office of complainant at Delhi and the delivery of goods was made to the transporter of the accused at Delhi. In order to discharge his legal liability, accused handed over cheques as Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:37:10 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 2 OF 20 tabulated in Table-A below be referred as the "cheques in question/ impugned cheques".
3. The accused assured to honour his promise and it was agreed if accused fails to honour his promise, the complainant shall be entitled to present the aforesaid cheques. Accordingly, the impugned cheques were presented by the complainant but the impugned cheques were return unpaid. After no satisfactory response to several intimation and requests, the complainant sent a legal notice through speed post, which was duly served upon the accused but accused failed to repay the amount of dishonoured cheques within 15 days. The complainant has filed the present complaint upon dishonour of the impugned cheques u/s 138 of NI Act.
TABLE-A Cheque no. Drawer bank Dated Amount 981531 Punjab National Bank 07.05.2017 Rs.8,46,254/-
Haibowan Kalan, Ludhiana 981533 Punjab National Bank 08.05.2017 Rs.7,57,061/-
Haibowan Kalan, Ludhiana 981534 Punjab National Bank 09.05.2017 Rs.3,69,944/-
Haibowan Kalan, Ludhiana 981532 Punjab National Bank 08.05.2017 Rs.7,00,000/-
Haibowan Kalan, Ludhiana
4. After being satisfied that prima facie ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are made out and leading the pre-summoning evidence, the cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:37:26 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 3 OF 20 against the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused, on behalf of accused, entered into appearance.
5. During his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC, the accused, admitted the receipt of legal demand notice and the signatures on impugned cheque and claimed trial, after raising his plea of defence.
6. After the admission and denial of the documents on behalf of accused, the matter was then listed for Complainant Evidence. CW- 1 (complainant) relied on his pre summoning evidence by way of affidavit in post summoning evidence (CW-1/1) and relied on following documents.
Certificate of incorporation Ex.CW1/A
Board resolution Ex.CW1/B
Cheque and returning memo Ex.CW1/C and
Ex.CW1/D
Legal demand notice Ex.CW1/E
Postal receipt Ex.CW1/F (colly)
7. The AR of the Complainant was examined and cross- examined as CW-1. Thereafter, the CE was closed.
8. During statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, after all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused and opted to lead DE. The accused has examined as DW-1 and DE was closed.
RAVISHA Digitally signed by
RAVISHA SIDANA
SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20
16:37:39 +0530
9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 4 OF 20
ARGUMENTS
9. The final arguments were heard. I have heard the ld. counsel appearing for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
10. It has been argued by the complainant that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case and further:
a) He has argued that the business relationship of the accused and complainant are not denied. The accused has admitted his signature on the cheques in question. No suggestions have been put to the important witnesses on material issues.
b) Further, it has been urged that the accused has taken different stands during different stages of the trial. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that it has been duly proved in this case and the accused has failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.
11. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
12. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt and submits that
a) The accused has no legally enforceable liability towards the complainant as the impugned cheques were given as security in the year 2014. No bills/ ledger account has been placed, on record, by Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:37:48 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 5 OF 20 the complainant. Further, the proof of return of goods has been filed on record by the accused.
b) The competency of AR of the complainant is under cloud as his authority to prosecute and pursue the present case.
c) The service of legal demand notice has not been proved by the complainant.
d) The accused can rely on the evidence led by the complainant to prove his defence and it is not required that the accused himself leads evidence in his defence.
As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION-
13. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both parties. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals that the following ingredients are to be proved before an offence is said to be committed:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him 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;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: 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;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA 16:38:05 Date: 2026.05.20 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 6 OF 20 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;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
14. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act when the above mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions provided under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
15. It is settled law that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Presumption under section 139 of NI act is raised in favour of the complainant. The presumption raised is a rebuttable presumption and the onus on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting, the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. [Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (AIR 2019 SC 1983) See also Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513].
16. The phrase "unless the contrary is proved" u/s 139 is of vital importance clarifying that the rebuttal of the presumption has to be supported by proof and not mere plausible explanation. The liberty is granted to the accused to either rely on evidence led by him in his support or the material relied by the complainant to raise his probable defence. In addition to the materials brought on record, the circumstances relied upon can also draw the inference of preponderance of probability lying in the favour of the accused.
Digitally signedRAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:38:11 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 7 OF 20
17. The proof of the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheques, in each case, which the accused has not disputed as not being drawn from his account. It is not disputed that the cheques in question were presented within the respective validity period. The cheques in question were returned unpaid vide return memo. A demand notice was sent to the address of the accused vide registered post and the same has been proved by legal notice, postal receipts and Tracking report.
18. The accused has not disputed the receipt of legal notice in his initial defence while framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, admission of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC but denied the receipt of the same during his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also becomes disputed.
19. It is noteworthy that the accused in his statement's u/s 294 has admitted the receipt of legal demand notice. It is noteworthy that the accused has admitted the address on the legal demand notice in statement under Section 313 CrPC to be correct.
20. It is well settled position of law that if the notice is issued to the proper address of the accused, then, even if the notice returned unserved with an endorsements as 'not claimed', 'unclaimed', RAVISHA Digitally signed by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:38:16 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 8 OF 20 'refused', 'left the address', 'door locked' etc, it amounts to deemed service of legal notice. Reference in this regard may be made to a provisions of Sec.27 of General Clauses Act. In the present case, the accused has not seriously disputed the address mentioned on the legal notice, postal receipt, postal cover and postal acknowledgment including his residence on the said address. It is suggestive of the fact that as on the date of issuance of legal notice, the accused was residing on the said address. So, it is clear that the notice sent to the accused by the complainant amounts to deemed service of legal notice. But, in spite of deemed service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of legal notice.
20.1 Reliance is placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr, VI (2007) SLT 442, that when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act stands complied with.
21. It is further no longer res integra that notice to proprietor/Partner is deemed notice to the accused firm and it is already proved that notice has been sent to the accused being the proprietor/Partner of the firm. Therefore, the defence of the accused that he had not received the legal demand notice is negated as it Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2026.05.20 16:38:24 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 9 OF 20 does not hold any ground. In the light of aforesaid observations, the fourth and the fifth ingredient also stand proved.
22. In the light of aforesaid observations, the fourth and the fifth ingredient also stand proved. 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.
22.1 Now, it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved or not. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt.
23. During the stage of notice framing and admission and denial of documents, and his statement recorded under 313 Cr.PC, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question that has been drawn in favour of the complainant. Hence, the presumption under 139 NI Act read with Section 118 NI Act is drawn in favour of the complainant.
24. The accused in the present case has relied on the following line of main defences to rebut the presumption:
A. The Blank signed cheques were issued to the complainant B. The impugned cheques were misused by the complainant To analyse these defences in the right perspective, the following Issues need to be adjudicated: Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2026.05.20 16:38:29 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 10 OF 20
i)Whether the AR of the complainant was competent to file and pursue the present complaint (preliminary objection)
ii)Whether the accused issued blank signed cheques to the complainant ass security
ii) Whether the impugned cheques are in discharge of his outstanding liability towards the supply of goods.
1. AR IS NOT A COMPETENT WITNESS
25. Ld. counsel for the accused raised a preliminary objection that the AR of the complainant has not been able to prove that he was duly authorised to prosecute and pursue the present complaint against the accused. During cross-examination of the AR of the complainant on 03.02.2023, the following testimony was recorded:
"I have filed board resolution dated 01.07.2017. The meeting of board resolution was held in Delhi Head office. There are two directors in complainant company. Pankaj Gupta, one of the directors of complainant company has signed the board resolution. Accused company is situated in Ludhiana, Punjab. I never visited accused company. I am the accountant in complainant company and I do the work of GST at present. I do not remember whether bills of sale of material sold to the accused have been filed on record or not because it pertains to year 2017. I have no knowledge whether accused company has filed any civil case in Ludhiana, Punjab against the complainant company. I do not remember whether statement of running account of accused company has been filed on record or not because it is matter of 2017. The cheques in question was issued in May 2017. I do not know who filled the details and dates of cheques in question. I do not know whether complainant company had informed accused company about dishonouring of the cheques in question. Vol. I myself did not inform the accused company about the Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:38:40 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 11 OF 20 dishonouring of cheques in question. However, some other employee of the complainant company might have informed the accused company. I do not know whether the credit limit of purchase of material of accused company was settled or not. Vol. There is no credit limit. Mr Arvind dealt with the accused company in Ludhiana relating to sale. Mr Vikas Gupta used to deal with accounts of the accused company in 2017. It is correct that I do not know about sales and accounts of accused company in 2017. ***Vikas Gupta must have tallied the accounts of the accused. I do not know whether the accounts were tallied by Vikas Gupta. Vikas Gupta can tell."
26. Based on the aforesaid testimony, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the AR of the complainant has not been able to prove that he was duly authorised to prosecute the present complaint against the accused. However, I do not agree with the said contention.
27. It is pertinent to note here that the AR is one of the employee working as accountant of the Complainant firm. Furthermore, it is a settled position of law that suits/complaints should not be rejected on technical grounds once the legal entity which files the case, contests the case to the hilt, i.e., till the stage of the final arguments. Section 174 of The Companies Act relied upon by ld. Counsel for the accused during final arguments is a general provision for Quorum of meetings of the board and in no manner affects the sanctity of the board resolution Ex.CW1/B. Except for suggestions, the accused has not been able to prove that AR was not competent to file the present complaint.
Digitally signed byRAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:38:48 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 12 OF 20
28. Regarding the personal knowledge of the AR of the complainant to depose in evidence on behalf of the complainant, it is apparent from the entire testimony of the AR of the complainant as CW-1, that the AR had no knowledge about the transaction alleged in the complaint. Therefore, no credence can be given to the evidence tendered regarding the liability of the accused in the matter of transaction and execution of the cheques in question. In view of foregoing reasoning and settled position of law, the argument put forth by the accused that since the AR of the complainant had no knowledge of the present case and thus, his evidence cannot be weighed is not without merit.
29. It is pertinent to note that the officer of the complainant deposing on behalf of the company must be in direct knowledge of the facts stated in the complaint or PSE affidavit. The recent dictum of Hon'ble Kerala HC in Padma Conductors Pvt. Ltd vs Mirc Electronics on 7 February, 2024 is relied on in this behalf on the aforesaid ratio:
In order to prove the transaction led to execution of a cheque, somebody who should have direct knowledge regarding the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque must be examined. When the complainant limits the evidence as that of an officer of a company, who did not have any direct knowledge regarding the transaction and he did not witness the execution of the cheque, the evidence is insufficient to discharge the initial burden cast upon the complainant. So, it could not be held that the complainant succeeded in discharging his initial burden, to avail the benefit of presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act."Digitally signed
RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:38:53 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 13 OF 20
30. Therefore, the objection taken by learned counsel for the accused to the effect that the AR of the complainant company is not duly authorised to file the present complaint stands rejected but the objection of no personal knowledge of the facts of the case, neither direct nor acquired from the records of the complainant company, stands allowed.
31. For the sake of adjudication of merits, the remaining issues are decided as follows:
BLANK SIGNED CHEQUE AS SECURITY
32. The first defence taken by the accused is the cheques in question were misused by the complainant as the impugned cheques were issued as security to the complainant and he himself filled the particulars of the same before presenting it.
33. Section 20 of the NI Act talks about inchoate instruments. As per this provision if a person gives a duly signed cheque which is either blank or partly filled then he is deemed to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particular in it and complete the cheque, thus making the drawer liable for the payment mentioned in it. 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 provision of section 138 would be attracted.
Digitally signed byRAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:39:02 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 14 OF 20
34. On this point, it is profitable to mention the judgment of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1174 , wherein it has been held that merely because a cheque has been issued for only security purposes will not absolve the accused from the liability u/s. 138 NI Act. It has been further held that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the accused would very much be liable u/s. 138 NI Act for issuance of a security cheque also, if on the date of the presentation of such cheque, there has not been a prior discharge of debt, or if the cheque has not been given towards advance payment, the goods in respect of which have not been received by the other party, or if other than this there has been change in circumstances which precludes the complainant from depositing the cheque with the bank.
35. It is the specific version of the complainant that the cheques in question were issued by the accused for the discharge of his liability to pay for goods supplied. In Ergo, the stance of the accused during his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC and recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC is that the impugned blank signed cheques were misused by the complainant as defective goods were supplied by the complainant.
Digitally signedRAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:39:09 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 15 OF 20
36. As discussed, even in case of blank signed cheques, the statutory presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 would be raised in favour of the complainant. Since, the accused has admitted the execution of impugned cheque, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
IMPUGNED CHEQUES WERE IN DISCHARGE OF GOODS SUPPLIED
37. In the Complaint and PSE affidavit Ex.CW1/A, the complainant alleged that there were business relations with the accused, in lieu of the aforesaid, the accused approached him for supply of goods and the same were duly supplied to him. The factum of business relations is not disputed by the accused during his statement recorded under section 251 Cr.P.C and Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the factum of business relations stands proved, as averred in the Complaint and PSE affidavit.
38. During his statement recorded u/s 251 Cr.PC and elaborate plea of defence recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused stated that:
a)The complainant company supplied defective material not as per the requisite specifications.Digitally signed by RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA Date: SIDANA 2026.05.20 16:39:14 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 16 OF 20
(b) The accused requested the complainant company to take back the defective goods but complainant failed to do the needful.
39. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the onus to prove or even to raise a probable defence of the goods supplied being defective was on the accused.
41.1 In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1931 provides that a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when she/he intimates the seller that she has accepted them or when the goods have been delivered to him/her and she/he does any act in relation to them inconsistent with the ownership of the seller or when after the lapse of a reasonable time, she retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he/she has rejected them.
40. As per the examination-in-chief of the accused, the complainant had asked for four security cheques in year 2014 after appointed him as distributor on behalf of complainant but the complaints of sagging of goods was received till end of year 2016 and the complaint in this regard was made to staff of the complainant company namely Arvind and Vikas but no action was taken in this regard. He further stated that the statement of account provided by the complainant company had made certain false entries of bills but no goods were received in that regard. Therefore, civil Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:39:36 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 17 OF 20 suit in Ludhiana district court for stopping the misuse of cheques in question was filed and the same had been placed on record as Ex.DW1/1 and document received from the concerned bank is Ex.DW1/2 regarding the reason for closure of his account.
41. Although, no such written communication has been placed on record which pertains to the transaction in question as the accused admits that the said correspondence was made telephonically but the perusal of the civil suit filed by the accused bearing no. 9098/2017 against the complainant Ex.DW1/1 shows that accused had moved the Civil Court for the relief of Rendition of accounts for the running account of the accused, Mandatory induction for the return of the impugned cheques given as security and permanent induction to restrain from the misuse of the impugn cheques, which is pending adjudication.
42. Further, the attempt to return the defective goods by the accused was shown through the proof of Form no. 38 of Department of commercial Tax, Govt. of U.P as Mark A. The objection raised qua the admissibility of the Mark A is raised by Ld. Counsel for the complainant as it is not supported with a proper certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
43. With respect to the aforesaid contention, it is indeed correct that the Mark A is not supported with a proper certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It is a settled position of law Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:39:41 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 18 OF 20 that a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic record in evidence (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot suffice as Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law (Ibid). Therefore, the witness is required to furnish a certificate which is in compliance with all the aforesaid conditions.
44. In this case, no certificate under section 65B has been tendered in evidence. In light of the same, the Mark A cannot be admitted in evidence.
45. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed conclusively that the accused had retained the goods and accepted the goods supplied by the complainant within the meaning of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act.
46. In totality, accused has been successful in raising a cloud over the story of the complainant that the impugned cheque was not issued for the aforesaid liability. Thus, evidence of the accused inspires confidence due to severe contradictions of the complainant. As per the above discussion, it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant for the transaction in question. Therefore, the essential ingredient (ii) as discussed in the preceding paragraph is not proved.
Digitally signedRAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20 16:39:47 +0530 9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 19 OF 20
47. The primary burden upon the accused was to punch holes in the version of the complainant in order to rebut the presumptions and the standard of proof required from him was preponderance of probabilities and the accused has been been able to do the same by bringing out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the version put forward by the complainant. The accused has been successful in discharging his burden of proof, in order to rebut the operation of the presumption.
48. In my view, the complainant has not proved that the accused had issued the cheques in question in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the accused, thus, stands Acquitted for the said offence.
49. This judgment contains 20 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA
SIDANA
SIDANA Date: 2026.05.20
16:39:51 +0530
(RAVISHA SIDANA)
JMFC, NI ACT-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, THC/20.05.2026
9098/2017, 9102/2017, 9138/2017 AND 9140/2017 M/S R.P. FOAM HOME (P) LTD. V. BHAGWATI SALES CORPORATION, PAGE 20 OF 20