Delhi District Court
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers vs Krishna Chandra Dubey on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SOLANKI : JMFC NI
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX
M/S NEW SEHGAL JEWELLERS VS. KRISHNA CHANDRA
DUBEY
Vs.
KRISHNA CHANDRA DUBEY
CC NI ACT No. 2377/2019
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CC NI Act number : 2377/2019
2. Name of the complainant : M/S New Sehgal Jewellers
3. Name of the accused : Krishan Chandra Dubey
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Acquitted
7. Date of judgment/order : 22.12.2025
Date of Institution: 22.06.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment/Order: 01.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order : 22.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by M/S New Sehgal Jewellers (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against Krishan Chandra Dubey Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:47:44 +0530 1 Out of 18 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 r/w Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
Brief facts:
2. It is the case of the complainant, the accused was having friendly and family relation with the complainant for the last many 25 years. That the complainant is a goldsmith by professin and he is also doing the business of sale and purchase of Gems. That the accused contacted with the complainant on 07.04.2019 abnd 09.04.2019 and he stated to the complainant that a marriage of his daughter is scheduled in near future so for this purchase accused was required jewellery from the complainant. That on 07.04.2019 accused came to the complainant's showroom and he purchased gold Kada weighing 92.300 Gms., quantity 2.00 OTH with labour charges Rs.13,800/- after paying taxes totaling Rs.3,15,584.00 but accused did not pay even a singly penny to the complainant and he assured the complainant that he will again come on 09.04.2019 and he will make the payment.
2.1. That on 09.04.2019 the accused further visited the complainant's office/showroom and further purchased Kitty Set weighing 28.210 Gms. For the value of Rs.96,920.00 and Gold Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2377/202192025.12.22 16:47:53 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530 2 Out of 18 Coin, quantity 8.00 OTH for the value o Rs.2,00,000/- with labour charges Rs.13,831/- after payingtaxds total value of above said gold articles became totaling Rs.3,20,074/- After purchase of above said gold jewellery each date the complainant prepared tax invoice on dated 07.04.2019 abd 09.04.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that accused handed over a photocopy of Aadhar card and shown two PAN card number to the complainant which is also mentione on tax invoice. After purchase of the above said gold jewellery from the complainant and in discharge of his debt and liability, the accused has issued cheque of Rs.6,35,651/-
regarding purchase of above said total jewellery bearing cheque no. 511192 dated 16.04.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Radheypuri, Delhi-110051 in favaouor of complainant's firm New Sehgal Jewellers and he assured the complainant that the said cheque would be encashed on its presentation in the bank.
2.2 That on believing assurance of accused, teh complainant asked the accused to present the said cheque in the bank and accused consented for the same, then the complainant presented the said cheque in his banker for its encashment i.e. Axis Bank Ltd., Geeta Colony Branch, Delhi but the said cheque was returned unpaid as dishonoured with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" vide cheque returning memo dated 13.05.2019. That after dishonor the above said cheque, the complainant asked the Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI ANKIT Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI 2025.12.22 16:48:03 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530
3 Out of 18 accused to pay the cheque amount but he avoided the same and ultimately accused flatly refused to make the payment of the abovesaid cheque to the complainant. That keeping no way, the complainant got a legal notice dated 22.05.2019 issued through speed post by his counsel upon the above named accused therey calling upon the accused to make the payment of cheque to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice.
2.3 That the legal notice sent to the accused, it is pertinent to mention here that the accused intentionally avoided to receive the legal notice as per shown by the tracking report. The registered envelope/legal notice has not been received back by the counsel for the complainant and the accused did not make the payment of the above said cheque within the stipulated period. That on accout of dishonor of above said cheque in question and by not complying with the legal notice, the accused has committed offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Ct. It is further stated tht issuance of cheques by the accused is conclusive proof his liability and he cannot avoid the same. The said cheques has been issued by the accused with ulterior motives and with malafide intention, as at the time of issuance of said cheques, the accused was fully aware of the fact that the same would be dishonoured on its presentation as such accused Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI ANKIT CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:48:12 +0530 4 Out of 18 has cheated the complainant. That the complaint is being filed after due compliance of the provisions as specified under section 138 of The Negotiablel Instruments Act, 1881.
Proceedings before the Court:
3. The complaint was received by assignment in this Court. After perusing the complaint and hearing the arguments of the complainant on the point of summoning of the accused, prima facie it appeared that the offence U/S 138 NI Act, has been committed. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act was taken against the accused on 22.06.2019 and summons were issued to the accused.
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 16.02.2022 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, considering the defence stated at the time of framing of notice by the accused, this court decided to allow cross examination of the complainant as per 145(2) NI Act, and the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant evidence, complainant has examined himself as witness as CW-1. After due cross examination of CW-1 by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, CE was closed in the present case on 12.02.2025. Statement of the accused U/S 313 CrPC was Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 2025.12.22
16:48:21
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530
5 Out of 18
recorded on 04.09.2025 wherein the accused has opted not to lead defence evidence and the case was listed for final arguments. On 01.12.2025, final arguments were heard on behalf of the complainant and accused and the case was reserved for judgment.
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has led his evidence by way of evidence affidavit.
6. Complainant has not examined any other witness in this case.
7. The accused has not lead any evidence.
Arguments of both parties:
8. Ld. counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint has argued that all the requirements of Section 138, NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case. He argued that the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards his legally enforceable liability.
He further argued that when the cheque was presented before Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 16:48:30 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530 6 Out of 18 the bank for encashment, the same was dishonored on presentation vide return memo dated 13.05.2019 for reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter the legal notice dated 22.05.2019 was sent to the accused to make the payment within the 15 days stipulated period, but no payment was made by the accused. Thus, all the ingredients of section 138 NI Act, have been duly satisfied and thus presumption U/S 139 NI Act, has been validly raised against the accused. Ld. Counsel submits that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence to disprove the case of complainant and to rebut the presumption U/S 139 NI Act.
Appreciation of evidence:
9. I have heard counsels on behalf of both the sides, perused the record as well as relevant provisions of law.
10. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first. Section 138, NI provides as under:
"Section 138.- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:48:39 +0530 7 Out of 18 the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:"
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:
(A) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(B) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
and (C) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation -- for the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
11. It is well settled position of law that to constitute an offence under Section 138, NI Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
I. drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 2025.12.22
16:48:47
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530
8 Out of 18
II. The cheque was issued for payment to another person for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
III. Cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. RBI in its notification DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 has reduced the aforesaid period from 6 months to 3 months.
IV. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque;
V. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount;
VI. Failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
The offence under Section 138, NI Act is made out against the drawer of the cheque, only when all the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled.
12. In the present case at hand, the complainant has filed on record the original cheque, i.e., bearing no.511192 dated 16.04.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rdhey Puri, Delhi-110051. In notice under Section 251 CrPC, the accused has admitted to issuing the cheque in question to the complainant and admitted the signatures on the cheque. Therefore, ingredient number I stands fulfilled in the present case.
13. As per the RBI guidelines, it is essential for the cheque in question be to presented within a period of three months from the date on which they are drawn and the same be returned as unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI ANKIT CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:48:57 +0530 9 Out of 18 credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque. In the case at hand, the cheque in question was returned vide return memo dated 13.05.2019 due to the reason "Funds Insufficient." By implication thereof, the cheques were presented within three months and the same were returned for Drawer Signature Differ. Therefore, Ingredient number III & IV stand fulfilled in the present case.
14. The legal notice in the present case was sent to the accused on 22.05.2019 i.e., within 30 days of return of the bank memo indicating cheque in question being unpaid. The accused has not admitted to the receipt of legal demand notice in notice u/s 251 CrPC. As per the presumption raised under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if the legal demand notice is sent at thorrect address, then the same shall be deemed to have been duly served.
As per the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri), "A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
In K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr, Appeal (crl.) 1015 of 1999 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as "K. Bhaskaran"), the Hon'ble SC observed:
"On the part of the payee he has to make a demand by `giving a notice' in writing. If that was the only requirement to complete the offence on the failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of such `giving' the travails of the prosecution would have been very much lessened. But the legislature says that failure on the part of the drawer to Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:49:06 +0530 10 Out of 18 pay the amount should be within 15 days `of the receipt' of the saidnotice. It is, therefore, clear that `giving notice' in the context is not the same as receipt of notice." The burden of giving notice within 30 days of return of bank memo, falls on the complainant/payee to constitute the offence u/s 138, NI Act. If the notice is served on the correct address, then the presumption u/s 27 General Clauses Act and Section 114, Indian Evidence Act arises in the favour of the complainant/payee. Therefore, it is deemed that the legal notice was duly served on the accused person. The ingredient number V also stands fulfilled in the present case.
15. Moving on, it is not disputed that the accused has not made the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of legal demand notice. Therefore, ingredient number VI also stands fulfilled in the present case.
16. Let us now move on to ingredient number II, 16.1. The NI Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque, i.e., complainant; firstly, with regard to the issuance of cheque for consideration, as contained in Section 118(a) and secondly, with regard to the fact that the holder of cheque received the same for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, as contained in Section 139 of the Act.
16.2. Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [AIR 2019 SC 1983] held that:
I. Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates that a presumption be drawn that the cheque in question was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
II. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:49:20 +0530 11 Out of 18 defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
III. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
IV. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
It is therefore implied that the law regarding the presumption for the offence under Section 138, NI Act, the presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 have to be compulsorily raised as soon as the execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise.
16.3. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [(2009) 2 SCC 513], has laid down the benchmark for the burden of proof that the accused has to raise a doubt as to the presumption under Section 139, NI Act.
"The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions, an accused is not Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 2025.12.22
16:49:29
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530
12 Out of 18
expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 16:49:38 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530 13 Out of 18 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue."
16.4. To put in a nutshell, the intent behind the NI Act is to prevent financial frauds and affect the socio-economic well- being of the country. If the burden is placed on the complainant to prove the existence of liability against the accused, that would be too harsh as most of these transactions are in the nature of "friendly loan" and the accused would, in a normal circumstance, always deny the liability. Therefore, the legislation is drafted in a way so as to discharge the complainant from proving the liability and a presumption is raised by virtue of Section 139 read with Section 118(a) of the Act that the cheque if issued by the accused, then the same is deemed to be in discharge of some legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused "may" either prove that no legally enforceable debt existed or punch holes in the story of the complainant and give rise to a probable defence to rebut the presumption. As per the law discussed above, the burden of proof on the accused to raise a probable defence is that of "preponderance of probabilities", and not "beyond reasonable doubt." Once a probable defence is raised, then the onus is shifted to the complainant to establish that a legally enforceable liability existed in his favour and the burden of proof on complainant in this case is that of "beyond reasonable doubt."
16.5. The accused can rebut the presumption as raised under the NI Act by (a) putting forth his defence at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC; (b) cross-examining the complainant; (c) when statement of accused is recorded u/s 313 CrPC; (d) or by leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant. It is amply clear that the accused does not need to discharge his or her liability beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He just needs to create holes in the case set out by the Complainant.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22
16:49:46
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530
14 Out of 18
17. In light of the above discussions since the accused has admitted to issuance of cheque, admitted the signature on the Cheque and the legal demand notice what is left to be seen is whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against himself and that whether he has been able to raise a probable defence in his favor or not.
18. During final arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant had argued that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and a presumption u/s 118 NI Act is in favour of the complainant. The complainant has been successful in proving his case on the basis of preponderance of probability.
19. On the other hand, the accused had argued that he does not owe any legal liability towards the complainant and the cheque in question was issued to the complainant as a security. Therefore, he be acquitted of all the charges.
20. After hearing both the parties at length, the court is of the opinion that there are certain lacunaes in the version put forward by the complainant.
(i) Firstly, the complainant in his cross examination had stated that the accused used to come to his shop to purchase gold every year. However, he stated that he can not show any bill of the jewelry purchased by the accused. There is no explanation as to why the complainant can not produce any bill of the alleged transactions between him and the accused. This casts a doubt upon the story of the complainant.
(ii) Secondly, the complainant in his complaint had stated that he is friends with the accused for previous 25 years. However, during his cross examination, he had stated that he had never visited the house of the accused. It is unexpected of a person to not visit the house of his friend whom he has known for 25 years.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219
2025.12.22
16:49:56
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530
15 Out of 18
(iii) Thirdly, the complainant in his cross had stated that the accused had on different previous occasions, purchased jewelry from him on credit basis. However, there is no document in support of the same.
(iv) Fourthly, the complainant had stated that at the time when on 07.04.2019, the accused came to his shop to purchase jewelry, there was no one present except for the two of them. It means that there is no witness to the transaction that took place according to the complaint. Apart from that there is no CCTV Footage placed on record by the complainant to prove that the accused came to his shop to purchase jewelry on 07.04.2019 and 09.04.2019. A Prudent gold shop owner is expected to install a CCTV Camera in his shop. In the present matter, there is no CCTV footage on record, which further casts a doubt upon the version put forward by the complainant.
21. The complainant had stated that he did not take any receiving from the accused at the time of delivering jewelry to him. Again a prudent business person is not expected to advance jewelry of huge amount to another without there being any receiving /acknowledgment/ written document.
22. The complainant in his cross examination had stated that the accused had taken the jewelry for the purpose of his daughter's marriage but he did not ask the date of marriage. Again a person can not be expected to give jewelry to another without inquiring about the transaction, specially when the other is taking the jewelry on credit basis.
23. The complainant during his cross examination had stated that there was no one present at his shop when the accused came to buy jewelry on 07.04.2019 and also on 09.04.2019. In a connected matter, titled Jaanvi Gems v. Krishan Chandra Dubey, the son of the complainant had also stated that the accused came Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 16:50:07 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey +0530 16 Out of 18 to buy jewelry on 02.04.2019, 05.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 and the son of the complainant also gave jewelry on credit basis to the accused. Both, the complainant in the present matter and the complainant in Jaanvi Gems v. Krishan Chandra Dubey, who are father and sons in relation did not tell this fact to each other even when they are staying in the same premises. This again casts a doubt upon the version put by the complainant.
24. The complainant in Jaanvi Gems v. Krishan Chandra Dubey, I.e the son of the complainant in the present matter had also stated that no one was present at the time when the accused came to his shop to buy jewelry on the three said dates. The testimony of both these witnesses seems suspicious as both of them have neither produced any witness to the transaction nor have they produced the CCTV footage of their shops.
25. The complainant during his cross had stated that the accused had never given him any cheque on any previous occasion. Then whey did the complainant accept cheque from the accused on this occasion.
26. The complainant during his cross had stated that the accused had four children and accused had taken jewelry for marriage of his eldest daughter. The accused states that none of his children is married. The complainant had not produced any evidence in support of his version that the eldest daughter of the accused is married.
27. The accused in his defence had contended that he had given the cheques in question for repayment of loan of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.100,000/- which he had taken from the complainant for his sons school fees seems probable.
28. As per the discussion above, this court is of the humble opinion that the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence and therefore, ingredients of Section 138 of NI Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI ANKIT CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219 Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.22 M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 16:50:17 +0530 17 Out of 18 Act have not been fulfilled. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the offence of 138 NI Act.
29. Copy of this Judgment be given free of cost to both the parties.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI Announced in open Court SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.22 Today on this 22.12.2025 16:50:25 +0530 (Ankit Solanki) Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI ACT), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.CC NI ACT No. 2377/20219
M/S New Sehgal Jewellers Vs. Krishan Chanra Dubey 18 Out of 18