Delhi District Court
Ravita vs Ms. Mikki Devi on 29 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SNEHIL SHARMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT DIGITAL COURT, NORTH
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOMA COURT, DELHI
JUDGMENT
RAVITA vs MIKKI DEVI CC NO: 151/2022 P. S. Karawal Nagar U/s 138 NI Act a CNR No. of the case : DLNE020001882022 b Date of institution of the case : 04.03.2022 c Cheque number and dated : 000008 dt. 20.09.2021 d Cheque amount : Rs. 3,35,000/-
e Name of the complainant : Ravita
w/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o H.No. C-225, Gali no.17,
Block C, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi-110092
f Name of the accused and his : Mikki Devi
w/o Sh. Upender Kumar
parentage
R/o House no.C-125, Gali no.12,
Block C, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi-110092
g Offence complained of : 138 NI Act
h Plea of accused : Not guilty
i Orders reserved on : 16.07.2024
j Final order : Accused Mikki Devi is
convicted for offences punishable
under sections 138 NI Act.
k Date of judgment : 29.08.2024
1. Vide this judgment the present complaint case for an offence punishable U/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the NI Act") is being decided.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 1 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:45:32 +0530
2. It is case of the complainant that accused is well known to the complainant and in the first week of May 2020, accused had approached and requested the complainant to advance a friendly loan of Rs. 7,60,000/- to meet her personl needs and requirements. Considering the request of the accused, complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- in five installments to the accused as a friendly loan for a period of one year.
3. After expiry of one year, when the complainant demanded the loan amount from the accused, the accused expressed her inability to repay the said loan amount and after great persuations and with the intervention of police officials of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi accused on 07.07.2021, issued three cheques in favour of the complainant for a total sum of Rs. 7,52,000/- On the same day, accused alongwith her husband Upender Kumar Singh had signed a promissory note in favour of the complainant in the presence of witness Dharminder Singh s/o Late Sh. Dharamvir Singh.
4. At the assurance of the accused, on 21.10.2021 the first cheque i.e. cheque bearing no. 000008 dt. 20.09.2021 for Rs. 3,35,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Yamuna Vihar Delhi was deposited twice by the complainant for payment but the same cheque was returned unpaid as dishonored with remarks "signatue differs" vide its returning memo dt. 25.10.2021 and 18.11.2021.
5. The complainant had sent a legal notice dated 23.11.2021 to the accused through his counsel regarding the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque through registered AD & speed post but the accused has neither discharged his liability nor make payment of the cheque amount and CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 2 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:45:36 +0530 therefore, the present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
6. On being satisfied of the prima facie ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued against the accused vide order dated 04.03.2022.
7. Accordingly, on 07.07.2022 notice under Section 251 Cr.PC r/w Section 263(g) Cr.P.C was framed and served upon the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While putting forth her plea of defence, accused has admitted her signatures on the cheque in question, and denied the other particulars of the cheque being filled by her. She admitted her address to be correct and having received the legal demand notice. Accused has further stated that she know the complainant but not properly. She used to put committee with her. She had not taken any loan from the complainant. In the month of July 2021, complainant alongwith three-four police personnel visited her house and forced her to return the complainant's money which she had never taken from the complainant. Police personnel threatened her and abused her and forced her to hand over three cheques and sign on them. Thereafter, they made her sign on the cheques and snatched the cheques forcefully. They have made her and her husband sign on some blank papers as well as took them with themselves. She had tried to register a complaint in PS Khajuri Khas but police scolded her and complaint could not be registered. She does not owe any liability towards the complainant qua the cheque in question. Complainant has misused her cheques.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 3 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:45:39 +0530
8. In Complainant's evidence, the complainant (CW-1) tendered his evidence affidavit in post summoning evidence and relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. CW1/B : Evidence of
complainant by
way of affidavit.
ii) Ex. CW1/1 : Original promissory note
alongwith complaint to
police.
iii) Ex. CW1/2 : Original Cheque
(admitted in statement U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.)
iii) Ex. CW1/3 &4 : Cheque returning memo
(admitted in statement U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.)
iv) Ex. CW1/5 : Legal notice
(admitted in statement U/s. 294 Cr.P.C.)
v) Ex. CW1/6
to CW1/11 : Postal receipts and tracking
report
vi) Ex. CW1/12 : Reply to legal notice
9. CW1/complainant was cross examined on behalf of the accused. During cross examination, CW1 has deposed that she is 5th class pass. She can read Hindi but cannot read English. She resides at H.No. 225, Gali No. C-17, Khajuri Khas, Delhi only and not at any other place. In her family her husband namely Ramesh, her son namely Sandeep Tomar, her daughter in law namely Anjali, grand daughter namely Pari (11 Yrs old), grand son namely Mithoo (5 yrs) resides with her. She is house wife. Her husband is driver(pvt.) in Civil Lines. Her husband has been in this profession since 30-35 yrs. His current salary is Rs 20,000/- and that in five years ago his salary was Rs 18,000/-. Her son was earlier working as Manager in Hotel and currently working in U.P. Police. Her son has been residing at different place since 5-6 yrs.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 4 of 18 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:45:44 +0530
10. CW1 further deposed that her husband is living with her at her residence. Her husband hand over his complete salary to her and she spent the given salary on household expenditure. Her husband take approx Rs 2,000/- from her for his own expenditures. The amount which is spent in household expenditure is almost Rs 7,000- Rs 8,000/-. When her son and her family used to live with them the amount of expenditure was almost Rs 15,000/- to Rs 16,000/-. The amount for expenditure at that time was given by her son too. She has voluntarily stated that at that time her son's salary was Rs 48,000/-. She used to spent Rs 16,000/- to Rs 17,000/- on her grand kids at the time when her son and his family used to reside with them.
11. CW1 further deposed that apart from income from the salary of her husband, the other sources of income are, income obtained from working at shop since 17 yrs, rent of amount Rs 7,000/- per month, and some money is also given to them by their son of amount Rs 10,000/- to Rs 15,000/-. She is currently not working at the shop (Shastri Park). She had worked at the shop from year 2000 to 2017. She alongwith one other girl namely Neetu used to sit at the shop. The monthly income from working at that shop was Rs 30,000 to Rs 35,000/-. At the shop, services like STD calling, filling the govt. forms, photoshop were provided, Neetu was given Rs 1500 per month for working at the shop. The shop was not on rent but on security.The amount of security was Rs 30 lacs given to shop owner. At the time of giving the security one agreement was made. When she vacated the shop, the owner returned the amount of Rs 3 lacs to her and she returned the agreement to her. At present two people are staying on rent, namely Dhirender and Himanshu and no rent agreement has been made on their names. Her house is 25 sq yard.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 5 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:45:46 +0530
12. CW1 further depossed that she has been knowing the accused since7-8 yrs. She know all the family members of the accused. The accused is house wife and she did not work at any other place. Since she know accused, accused'husband did not work anywhere. From what she know, accused'husband used to work as Manager in some Aloe vera company before she met her. The accused is staying on rent. She gave the friendly loan to accused as well as her husband. She gave the loan amount of Rs 7,60,000/- in 5 installments to both (5 May, 2020 - Rs 1.5 lacs, 20 May 2020- Rs 1.5 lacs, 30 May, 2020- Rs 1.5 lacs, 10 June 2020 - Rs 1.5 lacs and 20 June 2020- Rs 1,60,000/-). She had told about the said installments alongwith the dates to her Counsel. She had given all the installments in cash to the accused. The amount of Rs 7,60,000/- that was given to her was kept at her home. The amount was given in installments as she asked for the money in installments. The money was given for the period of 1 yr from the last installment given to her i.e from 20 June 2020. The accused had asked for the money for the period of l year. She asked for money from accused as well as her husband on 07.07.2021. No one was present at the time of asking for her money from accused and her husband. The accused gave her 3 cheques (Rs 3,35,000/-, Rs 2,17,000/- and Rs 2,00,000/-) on being asked for her money. The amount of Rs 8,000- was given to her by the accused. She does not remember the exact date on which the money Rs 8,000/- was given to her by the accused. No cheque was given to her by the accused after 07.07.2021 except the above 3 cheques. All the 3 cheques were duly filled by the accused and nothing was left unfilled. At the time of taking the cheques from the accused, Upendera, Dharmendra, Mikki and Ramesh was present. She gave the loan amount to the accused as on earlier occassions too the accused had taken the money and returned the same on time and hence she trusted her. She tried knowing the ability of the accused to repay the loan amount.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 6 of 18 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SHARMA SNEHIL Date: SHARMA 2024.08.29 17:45:51 +0530
13. CW1 has admitted that all the facts that she told to her Counsel are written in her legal notice as well as in her complaint. She had not concealed any fact. She had deposited the second and third cheques on 20.12.2021 and 10.03.2022 respectively. The accused asked her to deposit the cheque again after the cheque was bounced because of the the reason i.e signature differed. She does do not lend money on interest. Apart from the accused, she had given loan to some other person too namely Rita Jha. She had filed complaint case against Rita Jha which is of amount Rs 5,80,000/-. She does not know Sh. Anand Jha. She has voluntarily stated that he had ran away. She has admitted that she had filed complaint case against Anand Jha which is of amount Rs 7 lacs. She does not file ITR. CW1 has denied all the suggestions put to her during cross examination. Thereafter, CE was closed.
14. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and accused has denied having taken loan from the complainant. She has admitted drawing of the cheque but stated that cheque was taken from her forcefully as complainant has brought some police personnel with her and had made her to sign the promissory note and other documents forcefully and took the cheque forcibly. She has admitted receiving of legal notice and submitted that she had filed reply also. She has stated that cheque bears her signature and other details are not filled by her. Complainant has deposed falsley against her. Accused has opted to lead DE.
15. Accused has examined herself as DW1. Dw1 has deposed that she had not taken any amount from the complainant. She and the complainant used to run a committee. One day, the complainant came alongwith 2-3 CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.29 17:46:02 +0530 police men of Khajuri Khas police station at her residence. They asked her to return the complainant's money. She told them that when she had not taken any money from the complainant why do she had returned it. They threatened her and thereafter, she gave three cheques to them. She only signed those cheques and gave it to her. Two blank papers were also brought by them and they made her signed on them too. She too filed a complaint at PS Khajuri Khas. Nobody heard them and filed their complainat and they were sent back after scolding her husband. The complainant on several occasions at 12:00night, 12:30pm and 1:00pm used to come at their residence and disturb them. CW1' husband came alongwith her and told that she will drink poison if accused did not return her money. Complainant used to threaten them that she has some people who can harm them if she did not return her money. Thereafter, cross examination of DW1 could not be conducted as DW1 did not appear to get her cross-examination done in witness box ever, despite opportunities. Thereafter, DE was closed.
16. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that case of the complainant is proved and cheque is also in the favour of the complainant, therefore, accused must be convicted and amount should be recovered. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that complainant has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
17. I have heard ld counsel for the complainant and Ld. Defence counsel for accused & considered the respective arguments as well as gone through case file very carefully.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 8 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:12 +0530
18. The essential ingredients in order to attract Sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881 are as following:
i) The cheque for an amount is issued by the drawer to the payee/complainant on a bank account being maintained by him.
ii) The said cheque is issued for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or liability.
iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid on account of insufficient amount to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
iv) The cheque is presented within 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.
v) within 30 days a legal demand notice is issued by the payee or the holder in due course to the drawer of the cheque on receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque.
vi) The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of the money as demanded in the legal demand notice to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the reciept of said notice.
vii) The debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is legally enforceable.
19. Now, coming to the facts of the present complaint case keeping in view the essential ingredients of section 138 of NI Act. In this case, it is not disputed and duly admitted by the accused that the cheque in question bears her signatures, however she denies the other particulars fulfilled by her but admits that the same was taken by the complainant though forcefully. However, the report on the returning memo shows otherwise but as the accused herself has admitted her signature in court, same will be given weightage. Further drawing of cheque is admitted by accused U/s. 294 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it can be said that the cheque was drawn by her in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the essential ingredient (i) as discussed in the preceding paragraph stands fulfilled.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 9 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:18 +0530
20. Accused has further admitted the fact of dishonour of the cheque in question U/s. 294 Cr.P.C. and in statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and could not prove that cheque was dishonored for some other reason like stopping the payment and she had the money on the date of cheque, hence, another essential ingredients (iii) and (iv) also stand proved by the complainant. Accused has further admitted the fact of receiving the legal demand notice sent to her by complainant during her statement recorded in notice framing, under section 294 Cr.P.C. and in statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. She also stated that she had given the reply of the legal notice. No objection qua the delivery report ever taken by the accused earlier. Address mentioned on legal notice is same which is mentioned on bail bond. Therefore, it is proved that matter was in her knowledge. So it can be rightly said that she has received the legal notice. Hence, essential ingredients (v) and (vi) also stand proved.
21. Now coming to the last and the remaining core ingredients (ii) and
(vii) of Section 138 of NI Act as discussed above and the real issue of controversy herein i.e. whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of any debt or liability, whole or in part and whether the same is a legally enforceable debt.
22. With respect to the point of blank cheque raised by the accused, it is pertinent to mention that 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 draw liable for the payment mentioned in it. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 10 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:25 +0530 than the drawer, when the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision of section 138 would be attracted. At this stage, reference may be sought from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 wherein the Apex Court while upholding the validity of blank signed cheque in a proceeding u/s 138 of the Act has interalia held the following:
"If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee,towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
23. In this case, 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 cheques and signatures on cheque in question, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheques have been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
24. It has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. 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. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 11 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:29 +0530
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarize the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act 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.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
It is explicit in the NI Act that the said presumption shall remain untill contrary is proved.
25. In the present case, it is submitted by the accused as argumentthat the cheque was taken by the complainant forcefully with the help of police officials. Same was stated in notice framing, statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. as well as in defence. As the accused has admitted the handing over of cheque, it is also on record that even after filing a case the accused has not taken any steps to recover those cheques. She has not even filed any complaint either in bank or in police station or before the senior police officials. No call to 100 number is made by the accused regarding the snatching/forcefully taken her cheque. No objection or quarrel ever brought to the notice of the court by the accused, if it had taken before CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 12 of 18 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:32 +0530 committee members because as per accused she used to put committee with the complainant.
26. Perusal of the record also shows that the case is a classic example of the admitted one where during the notice framing accused has admitted that cheque in question bears her signature and address on legal demand notice is of her and also admitted the handing over of cheque but submits that no liability is pending. Accused has given inculpatory and exculpatory statements during the case, where inculpatory statements need not be proved and corroborating with the case of the complainant and for exculpatory statement, accused has not led any evidence, except the mere verbal submissions.
27. During the case, DW1 has not subjected herself to the cross examination and has not established any fact in her favour. DW1 has not even cross examined the complainant with respect to legal notice sent by her. She has corroborated with the story of complainant in defence by stating that she has signed the cheque and she had signed the papers and she had given three cheques to complainant and complainant used to come alongwith her husband to her residence for return of money. Similar facts were deposed by the complainant that accused has signed the cheque and complainant had given the complaint in police station and with the intervention of police officials, accused issued the three cheques in favour of the complainant alongwith promissory note and complainant had several times requested accused repay back the payment but accused did not pay any heed. Even the accused has not challenged the deposition of complainant that all the three cheques were duly filled by the accused. Accused has not brought any handwriting expert to rebut the claim of the complainant.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 13 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:35 +0530
28. Accused has not challenged the documents exhibited by the complainant regarding the promissory note as well as complaint before the police in which the accused had admitted the cheque and those documents also bears the signature of the accused. Accused has not brought any handwriting expert to show that she has not signed the documents. These documents are bear the signature of husband of the accused. Some objections were raised by the counsel for the accused with respect to the financial capacity of the complainant. However, same is not sustainable as the complainant had shown her income, income of her husband as well as of her son and income from the rent. Even the five dates are not challenged by the accused. No plea of alibi was taken by the accused for these dates. Moreover, as presumption has been raised against the accused, therefore, it was on the accused to rebut the same that why her cheque was lying with the complainant.
29. Accused has failed to inform the ultimate date of the repayment. Also, no document or witness or whatsapp chat is produced by the accused to prove the repayment (whatsoever) to the complainant and showing nil/less balance against the accused. Further, no document or witness or whatsapp chat etc. is produced by the accused in support of her contention that complainant has misused the cheque and forcibly taken the same. No repayment slip or no repayment message or no digital record of clearing all the dues towards the complainant is filed by the accused for the perusal of the court and for her support.
30. It is also found that the defence of the accused revolved around the fact that admission documents/application were made before the police and addressed to police and same are hit by evidence act and can not be read.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 14 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:40 +0530 However, undersigned does not found himself in agreement with the submission as there are two documents in Ex. CW1/1, in which one is addressed to police and other one is promissory note. Accused could not prove that promissory note was made by her due to coercion/pressure by the police or in police station/police presence. These documents does not show any statement that settlement document was being made with the intervention of police. Even the witness to the said promissory note i.e. Dharmender was not called by the accused to rebut the documents and to prove her plea. With respect to other documents/application which is addressed to the SHO, it is found that the said documents/application is written by the husband of the accused and not by the accused. Moreover, the said application only confirmed the fact regarding the handing over of the cheque and not the confession of the offence. Moreover, it does not show that accused was in custody of police while making the statement. In NI cases, the offence starts after the bouncing of the cheque. Therefore, the said documents does hit by the Evidence Act.
31. It is also found that no complaint is filed by the accused against the complainant for the abuse or misuse of the power and cheque. It is not the proven case of snatching or forceful possession of the cheques by the complainant. In that scenario only possibility arises that the accused had given the cheque to the complainant to repay the loan and husband had also signed the documents to ensure further safety of repayment.
32. Perusal of record shows that complainant has also deposed everything in complaint, legal notice and in evidence affidavit. The facts were remained unchallenged and unrebutted as accused could not contradict the complainant on the abovesaid facts. Moreover, the accused herself has also not stood the test of cross examination therefore, she has CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.29 17:46:43 +0530 not appeared for cross examination after being examination in chief. Her evidence become valueless and can not be considered. Hence, the deposition of the accused is not credit worthy.
33. No successful doubt is raised upon the financial capacity of the complainant. No successful doubt is raised upon the story deposed by the complainant. Accused had not challenged the dates as deposed by the complainant for the said transaction. Accused had not shown how and when she has repaid the entire amount. Mostly all the facts are admitted by the accused during the notice, U/s. 294 Cr. P.C. and in her statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Once the cheque is drawn in favour of the complainant, it was the duty of the accused to keep money in her bank account to discharge her legal liability against the complainant or if she has already paid the money she should ask the complainant in writing(documentary or through whatsapp) to return the cheque. However, as the accused has admitted herself that she had handed over the cheque and complainant proved that cheque was given to repay the loan, also sufficient to prove that cheque was issued in lieu of legal and enforceable debt. Non-discharge of the liability of cheque amount by the accused is not a ground of acquittal without any evidence/witness/record etc. Mere verbal submission of the accused is no evidence.
34. Also, accused had not shown any message or protest sent to the complainant regarding the return of her cheque. No complaint to the police or court or senior officials or other members of committee is made by the accused. Even, accused had not challenged the amount and liability. There exists no circumstances to create any doubt or confusion giving benefit of doubt to the accused.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 16 of 18 Digitally signed SNEHIL by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:47 +0530
35. On the aspects of preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. As per the facts and circumstances of this case accused has not led any cogent and believable evidence to support his defence and has failed to rebut the presumption.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another 2019) 18 SCC 106 and in various other rulings have time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Further, it has been held in Rajesh Agarwal v. State, 2010 SCC online Del 2501 that:-
"9. .....There is no presumption that even if an accused fails to bring out his defence, he is still to be considered innocent. If an accused has a defence against dishonour of the cheque in question, it is he alone who knows the defence and responsibility of spelling out this defence to the court and then proving this defences is on the accused....."
37. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the settled position of law in this regard, the presumption of law as per section 118(a) and section 139 of NI Act clearly come in picture for the favour of complainant and his burden of proving the fact of issuance of cheque in question in discharge of legally enforceable debt stands discharged and the accused has miserably failed to discharge her reverse onus. Accordingly, the ingredients mentioned at (ii) & (vii) of Para No.18 of this judgment are also fulfilled.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 17 of 18 Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.29 17:46:49 +0530
38. In my view, the complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability and has proved his case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, accused Mikki Devi is, thus, held guilty and stands convicted for the said offence.
Digitally signed by SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.29 17:46:53 +0530 Announced in Open Court (SNEHIL SHARMA) today on 29.08.2024 JMFC(NI Act) Digital Court, NORTH EAST,KARKARDOOMA
Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
CC NO. 151/2022 Ravita vs Mikki Devi page 18 of 18