Delhi District Court
Yatra Online Freight Services Private ... vs Sanjeev Rana on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-NI
ACT, DIGITAL COURT-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
(Presided over by Sh. Shivam Gupta)
Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited
Versus
Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor of R S Logistics
CC No. 2555-2023
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CNR number : DLND02-005126-2023
2. Name of the complainant : Yatra Online Freight Services Private
Limited
Plot Number 272, Phase II, Udyog
Vihar, Gurugram, 122001
Also at: Unit No.- 1, Sector B,
Pocket-7 Vasant Kunj
New Delhi-110070
Email: [email protected]
Mobile No. of the AR: 9953590087
3. Name of the accused, parentage : Sanjeev Rana
and residential address Proprietor, R S Logistics
Plot Number 12B & 13A, P P No.
0276, Rajendra Singh
Khasra Number 477, Shanti Vihar- II,
CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics
1
SHIVAM Digitally signed by
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30
04:50:04 +0530
Deenpur Najafgarh, Delhi-110043
Email: [email protected]
Mobile Number: 9818077159
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 : Conviction
7. Date of judgment/order : 30.10.2025
Date of institution: 16.02.2023
Date of reserving order: 03.09.2025
Date of judgment: 30.10.2025
ARGUING COUNSELS
For the Complainant : Sh. Rakesh Mukhija and Ms. Suhani Gupta.
For the Accused : Sh. Vineet Roya and Ms. Aarohi Sanklan.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited through its Authorised Representative (AR) (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused person') U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 r/w Section 142 CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 2 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:07 +0530 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
Brief facts:
2. The complainant is engaged in the business of providing ocean freight, air freight, logistics, clearing house agent services and freight forwarding services etc. It is the case of the complainant that the accused approached them to avail their logistics services. That both the parties started doing business and the accused availed the services of the complainant between May, 2022 to August, 2022. However, the accused person failed to make complete payment as per the accounts of the complainant. The accused acknowledged his liability of Rs. 19,25,598.91/- on 23.11.2022 and in discharge of his liability he issued the cheques in question which were not honoured.
DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES IN QUESTION:
Cheque Cheque Date of the Cheque Date of Reasons number amount cheque drawn on return for memo dishonour 000044 Rs.2,00,000/- 23.11.2022 Indian 02.12.2022 Funds Overseas Insufficient Bank 000045 Rs.2,00,000/- 23.11.2022 Indian 02.12.2022 Funds Overseas Insufficient Bank 000046 Rs.2,00,000/- 23.11.2022 Indian 02.12.2022 Funds CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 3 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:10 +0530 Overseas Insufficient Bank The complainant presented the cheque in question in its bank. The complainant after receipt of the said dishonoured cheque, sent a legal notice dated 21.12.2022 in writing through his counsel through speed post. The accused person had failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant within stipulated time of 15 days, hence this complaint U/S 138/142 NI Act.
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 made out. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act was taken against the accused on 16.09.2023 and summons were issued to the accused person.
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused person on 23.07.2024, 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) of the NI Act, and the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant evidence, AR of the complainant examined himself as CW-1 and Sh. Kumar Gaurab as CW-2. After due cross examination of CW-1 and CW-2 by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, complainant's evidence was closed in the CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 4 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 04:50:13 +0530 Date: 2025.10.30 present case on 18.03.2025. Statement of the accused U/Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 06.05.2025 wherein the accused stated that he will lead defence evidence. Then on 17.07.2025 the accused examined himself as DW1, and he was cross examined and discharged on the same day. Then the accused examined Sh. Paras Nath Jha as DW-2, he was cross examined and discharged on 05.08.2025. The defence evidence was closed by the order of the court on the same day. The matter was listed for final arguments. The final arguments of the parties were heard at length on 03.09.2025.
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has led his evidence by way of evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:-
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT No. 1. Certificate of incorporation of the complainant CW1/1 2. Resolution dated 12.08.2022 CW1/2 3. Statement of account maintained by complainant CW1/3 (Colly) 4. Invoices/Bills CW1/4 5. Cheque bearing number 000044 dated 23.11.2022 CW1/5 6. Return memo of CW1/5 CW1/6 7. Cheque bearing number 000045 dated 23.11.2022 CW1/7
CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 5 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:16 +0530 8. Return memo of CW1/7 CW1/8
9. Cheque bearing number 000046 dated 23.11.2022 CW1/9 10. Return memo of CW1/9 CW1/10 11. Legal notice dated 21.12.2022 CW1/11 12. Postal receipt CW1/12
13. Delivery receipt of speed post CW1/13
14. Email dated 30.12.2022 having legal notice CW1/14
15. Email of the accused dated 01.01.2023 CW1/15
16. Certificate under Section 65B of IEA CW1/16 17. Present complaint CW1/17
18. Letter dated 20.02.2023 CW1/C1
6. The accused person has brought the following documents on record:
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT No. 1. Ledger account maintained by the accused DW1/1
7. DW-2, Sh. Paras Nath Jha has brought the following documents on record:
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
No.
1. Account statement DW2/1
8. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the accused CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 6 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:20 +0530 orally argued at length.
COMPLAINANT'S ARGUMENTS
9. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant after reiterating the facts argued that the AR has deposed about the facts and the documents on record. The Ld. Counsel argued that the invoices and the ledger maintained by the complainant are on record and as per Ex. CW1/C1 the accused person has admitted his liability. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the accused has not cross examined the AR on liability of the accused. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the accused has not stated anything similar to the defence taken by him under Section 251 of CrPC in his examination. The accused has not produced anything regarding the price difference as claimed by him in his defence under Section 251 of CrPC. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the accused person has admitted that all the payment was through digital mode so how is cash transaction reflected in the ledger produced by the accused. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the closing balance in Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW2/1 is different so these documents are not reliable. The ledger produced by the accused person is not even signed by the accused person. Finally the Ld. Counsel argued that the accused person has failed to prove any defence and thus the presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands unrebutted.
ACCUSED'S ARGUMENTS
10. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that Ex.
CW1/3 starts from 16.05.2022 and as per the ledger produced by the accused some transactions have been hidden by the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 7 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 04:50:24 +0530 the accused argued that the complainant has concealed a payment of Rs. 16 lakhs made by the accused person. The complainant has misused the security cheques. The Ld. Counsel argued that the bank statement of the accused are not on record but the bank statements show that the accused has made the payment.
REBUTTAL BY THE COMPLAINANT
11. In rebuttal the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that Ex. DW1/1 is not proved as per provision of law and the same is not even signed. The ledger does not even mention the cheque numbers even if they were given as security.
The Ld. Counsel stated that the ledger produced by the accused is forged and fabricated as the entries are made for payment in cash, however on oath the accused has stated that the payments were made through online mode. Moreover the accused has stated that he handed over the cheque after invoices so they cannot be security cheques.
Legal Provisions
12. I have heard counsels on behalf of both sides and perused the record carefully.
13. For fastening liability U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, following are the requirements :-
I. Drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 8 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:28 +0530 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.
14. The combined reading of Section 118 and 139 of NI Act, raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is a settled principle of law that the presumption U/S 139 Negotiable Instruments CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 9 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:33 +0530 Act, can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence but the burden of proof is on the accused.
15. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof as recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"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 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 CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 10 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:37 +0530 the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposes 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."
16. The accused has to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality. Only in a case where the accused comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, that the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted.
Appreciation of evidence:
12. Issuance of cheque: In notice under Section 251 CrPC, the accused person has admitted his signatures on the cheques. It is also not disputed that the cheques in question are not drawn on the account maintained by the accused person and it is impliedly admitted therefore that the accused firm is the drawer of the cheques. Therefore, ingredient number I stands fulfilled in the present case.
13. Presentment and dishonor of cheque: As per the RBI guidelines, it is essential for the cheques 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 credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheques. In the case at hand, the cheques in question was returned vide return CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 11 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:41 +0530 memo (Ex. CW1/5, CW1/7 and CW1/9) due to the reason "funds insufficient"
By implication thereof, the cheques were presented within three months and the same were returned. Therefore, ingredient number III & IV stand fulfilled in the present case.
14. Legal demand notice and payment by the accused thereof: The legal notice (Ex. CW1/11) was dispatched vide Speed Post (Ex. CW1/12) within 30 days of return of the bank memo indicating the cheque in question being unpaid. The fact that the legal demand notice has made a clear and unambiguous demand for payment of the cheques in question is not disputed. The accused has denied the receiving of legal demand notice however he has admitted the address mentioned on the legal demand notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri). has laid down the law regarding presumption of delivery of legal demand notice on the accused. The Hon'ble Court had observed:
"...In our opinion, therefore, 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 proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with. It is needless to emphasise that the complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of the issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 12 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 04:50:44 +0530 Act, the Court is required to be prima facie satisfied that a case under the said Section is made out and the aforenoted mandatory statutory procedural requirements have been complied with. It is then for the drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice and show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tendered or that the report of the postman was incorrect. In our opinion, this interpretation of the provision would effectuate the object and purpose for which proviso to Section 138 was enacted, namely, to avoid unnecessary hardship to an honest drawer of a cheque and to provide him an opportunity to make amends."
17. Moving on, it is not disputed that the accused has not made the payment of the cheque amount. Therefore, ingredient number VI also stands fulfilled in the present case.
Presumption under Section 118A read with Section 139, NI Act
18. 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. These CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 13 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:50:48 +0530 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.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment titled Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 held that a reverse onus clause usually imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden and when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. It was further held that the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. 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 the complainant in this case is that of "beyond reasonable doubt."
20. The accused can rebut the presumption as raised under Section 138, 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;
CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 14 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 04:50:52 Date: 2025.10.30 +0530
(d) or by leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant.
Rebuttal of Presumption by Accused as to existence of legally enforceable debt
21. In light of the above discussion, since the accused person has admitted that the cheques have been signed by him, what is left to be seen is whether the accused person has been able to rebut the presumption against him, i.e., whether the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt?
22. The defence of the accused person is that there was a difference in the rate of the bill provided by the complainant and further that his liability was of Rs. 16 lakhs out of which Rs. 7 lakhs he has already paid. At the time of cross examination of the accused as DW1 he has himself stated that there is nothing on judicial record to show that there was a rate difference as claimed by him. The accused person has not been able to prove this defence taken by him.
23. The second defence of the accused person is that he has already paid Rs. 7 lakhs out of his liability of Rs. 16 lakhs. From the above it appears that the accused person has admitted a liability of Rs. 9 lakhs at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 of CrPC. As per Ex. CW1/3, which is the ledger account statement maintained by the complainant, the liability of the accused on 18.08.2022 is Rs. 19,25,598.91/- and as per the ledger account statement produced by the accused which is Ex. DW1/1, the liability of the accused on CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 15 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 04:50:56 +0530 Date: 2025.10.30 18.08.2022 is Rs. 4,14,389.91/-. The entries in the abovementioned ledger after 23.11.2022 are not relevant for the present case as the cheques in question are dated 23.11.2022. At the outset it must be noted that Ex. DW1/1 is not duly proved as per law. There is no certificate under Section 65B IEA/63 BNS regarding the genuinity of Ex. DW1/1. Moreover Ex. DW1/1 is not reliable as the accused himself has himself stated that he has himself not prepared the ledger but Mr. Paras Nath Jha has prepared the same. When Mr. Paras Nath Jha appeared as DW2 he did not produce any certificate nor did he depose anything about DW1/1. Moreover, the accused person in his cross examination has admitted that he has made the payment to the complainant only through cheque or digital mode. However, Ex. DW1/1 clearly mentions payments made in cash, this further makes Ex. DW1/1 unreliable. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the complainant has hidden some payments made by the accused persons in their ledger account statement; however, the accused person failed to produce any document to show the payments made by him to the complainant. The accused failed to produce his bank statement to corroborate the entries made in Ex. DW1/1. The complainant has brought a letter dated 20.02.2023 Ex. CW1/C1, which is signed by the accused person and in the letter the accused has admitted to a liability of more than 8 lakhs. As per Ex. DW1/1 the liability of the accused person on 01.05.2023 is Rs. 3,67,111.91/-, this further makes Ex. DW1/1 unreliable because the accused has himself admitted his liability more than the ledger in Ex. CW1/C1 on the same dates. Per contra, Ex. CW1/3 is supported by a certificate under Section 65B of IEA which is Ex. CW1/16. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the accused person has not CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 16 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 04:51:00 Date: 2025.10.30 +0530 even put a single question to the AR of the complainant regarding the entries made in Ex. CW1/3. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has not even given any suggestion to the AR that Ex. CW1/3 is forged or fabricated. In lieu of the above discussion Ex. CW1/3 appears to be a more reliable document.
24. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the complainant has misused the security cheques given by the accused. However, the accused person in his cross examination has stated that he had issued the cheques after the invoices were raised to him and received by him. Thus, this argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused holds no ground.
25. The contradictions and inconsistencies raised by the accused alone in absence of any other evidence or supporting material is not sufficient to put any dent in the testimony of the complainant. The version of the complainant has remained consistent in the complaint, evidence by way of affidavit and his cross- examination. Moreover, the same has not been shaken by the accused person either by his evidence or by the cross-examination of the complainant. The burden was on the accused person to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality. Only in a case where the accused person comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted. In this case, the accused has completely failed to rebut the presumption which arises from issuance of cheque.
26. Accordingly, this court holds the accused guilty and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of cheques in question.
CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 17 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 04:51:05 +0530
27. Let the accused be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
28. A copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Judgment pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2025.
This judgment consists of 18 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.
Digitally signedSHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 04:51:08 Date: 2025.10.30 +0530 (Shivam Gupta) Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-02 PHC, New Delhi 30.10.2025 CC No. 2555 of 2023 Yatra Online Freight Services Private Limited Vs. Sanjeev Rana, Proprietor R S Logistics 18 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 04:51:11 +0530