Delhi District Court
Arjun Kohli vs Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDDHANT KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)-05,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
JUDGMENT
DLND02-004882-2016 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions PS : Connaught Place Sh. ARJUN KOHLI (Proprietor of M/s Integra Graphics) S/o Sh. J N Kohli, 76A, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055 ..............Complainant Versus Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Office at D-37, 1st Floor, Sector-7, Noida, UP Also at 244/18, School Block, Gali No.3, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092.
.............. Accused No.1 Sh. Bishan Cahnd Sharma, (Director of M/s Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) Office at D-37, 1st Floor, Sector-7, Noida, UP Also at 244/18, School Block, Gali No.3, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092.
............... Accused no.2.
Mrs. Raj Bala Sharma, (Director of M/s Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) Office at D-37, 1st Floor, Sector-7, Noida, UP Also at 244/18, School Block, Gali No.3, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092.
............... Accused no.3.
Mrs. Ritu Mittal, (Director of M/s Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) Office at D-37, 1st Floor, Sector-7, Noida, UP Also at 442-A, Shanti Mohalla, Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi-110092.
............... Accused no.4.
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12
17:02:38
CT Cases 39635/2016 +0530
Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.1 of 17
Date of registration : 30.01.2016.
Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026
Decision : Convicted
1. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by Arjun Kohli (Proprietor of M/s Integra Graphics) against Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is running a proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Integra Graphics. The present complaint has been filed through the duly authorised Special Power of Attorney holder of the complainant. Accused no. 2 to 4 are the Directors of accused no. 1 company and were responsible for and in charge of the day-to- day affairs and conduct of business of accused no. 1 company.
3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons had regular business dealings with the complainant and used to purchase printing material from time to time. In the course of such dealings, a running and mutual current account was maintained by the complainant in the ordinary course of business. As per the statement of account maintained, an amount of Rs. 13,17,225/- became due and payable by the accused persons towards the complainant besides the C-Forms.
4. In discharge of their aforesaid legally enforceable liability, the accused issued eleven cheques, all dated 09.05.2013, drawn Digitally signed SIDDHANT by SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.02.12 17:02:42 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.2 of 17 on Oriental Bank of Commerce in favour of the complainant, bearing cheque nos. 661942 for Rs. 1,34,138/-, 661945 for Rs. 1,33,215/-, 661946 for Rs. 64,225/-, 673453 for Rs. 1,15,902/-, 673456 for Rs. 22,971/-, 673460 for Rs. 1,24,928/-, 678906 for Rs. 35,345/-, 678907 for Rs. 47,902/-, 678912 for Rs. 75,366/-, 678913 for Rs. 54,650/-, and 678921 for Rs. 35,693/-, towards part discharge of the outstanding liability.
5. The aforesaid cheques, upon being presented by the complainant for encashment within their period of validity, were returned unpaid by the banker of the accused vide return memos dated 13.05.2013 with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". The intimation regarding dishonour of the said cheques was received by the complainant on 15.05.2013.
6. Thereafter, the complainant caused a statutory legal demand notice dated 12.06.2013 to be issued to the accused persons through registered post, calling upon them to make payment of the cheque amounts within the stipulated period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Despite service of the legal notice, the accused persons failed to make payment of the cheque amounts within the statutory period. Consequently, the present complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.
7. After considering the complaint, the documents placed on record, and the pre-summoning evidence, the Court was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out. Accordingly, vide order Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.12 17:02:45 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.3 of 17 dated 25.11.2013, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused persons were summoned.
8. Notice under Section 251 CrPC for the offence was framed against the accused persons, namely accused no. 2 to 4, who are the Directors of accused no. 1 company, on 04.06.2019, to which they pleaded as under.
9. Accused no. 2 admitted issuance of the cheques in question. He stated that he did not receive the statutory legal demand notice. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In his defence, he stated that the cheques in question were issued as security cheques to the complainant against certain deliveries which were to be received from the complainant for the business purposes of the accused company.
10. Accused no. 3 denied signatures on the cheques in question and also stated that he did not receive the statutory legal demand notice. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the defence, he stated that the cheques in question were security cheques, which were issued to the complainant company against certain deliveries which were to be received from the complainant company for the business purposes of the accused company.
11. Accused no. 4 denied issuance of the cheques in question and also stated that she did not receive the statutory legal demand notice. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In her defence, Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.12 17:02:50 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.4 of 17 she stated that she had neither signed the cheques in question nor had any knowledge regarding the same.
EVIDENCE
12. Complainant examined CW-1, SPA Holder, who adopted his pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit.
13. In view of the defence taken by the accused, an opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 on 29.11.2019 and was duly cross-examined on 02.12.2019 and 08.03.2022.
14. During cross-examination, CW-1 deposed that the complainant firm had been doing business with the accused since July 2010 and that a running account was maintained in the ordinary course of business. He explained that the "mutual current account" referred to the account maintained in the books of the complainant for business transactions with the accused. CW-1 admitted that the statement of mutual current account was not filed along with the complaint initially, however, he produced and proved the confirmation of accounts for the period 01.04.2013 to 10.02.2014, which was admitted by accused no. 2 and exhibited as Ex. CW-1/D1 (colly) bearing the signatures of accused no. 2 on each page.
15. CW-1 denied the suggestion that no amount was due Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.12 17:02:53 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.5 of 17 against the accused or that the cheques in question were issued as advance or security cheques. He specifically stated that the cheques were issued as and when the payments became due, and that the same were already filled at the time they were handed over to the complainant. He admitted that he could not recall the exact dates of issuance of the cheques but stated that, to the best of his memory, the cheques were issued around January 2013. CW-1 further deposed that supplies continued even thereafter based on the assurances of the accused and that part payments were also made, which were duly reflected in the ledger account already placed on record. He denied the suggestion that the cheques were blank at the time of issuance or that the complainant was deposing falsely. CE was closed after examination of CW-1.
16. Statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein all incriminating evidence led by the complainant was put to the accused persons. Accused no. 2, in his statement, admitted that he had been running business transactions with the complainant. He stated that some defective goods were supplied by the complainant and claimed that he had no liability towards the cheques in question. Accused no. 3, in her statement, chose not to offer any explanation to the incriminating evidence put to her and stated that she did not want to say anything.
17. Accused no. 4 stated that accused no. 2 was a friend of her husband and that she had left the accused no. 1 company in the Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.12 17:02:58 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.6 of 17 year 2012. She claimed that all business dealings were carried out by accused nos. 2 and 3 and that she had no knowledge regarding the transactions mentioned in the complaint. She further stated that none of the cheques in question bore her signatures and that the signatures on the cheques belonged to accused no. 2. She also alleged that her signatures were forged by accused nos. 2 and 3 on certain documents and claimed that she had lodged a criminal complaint in this regard. She chose to lead DE and examined herself as DW-1 u/s 315 CrPC.
18. It is pertinent to note that after recording of their statements under Section 313 CrPC, accused nos. 2 and 3 stopped appearing before the Court. Consequently, proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated against them. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, accused nos. 2 and 3 were declared proclaimed persons.
19. Accused no. 4 examined herself as DW-1. In her deposition, she reiterated that she was appointed as an additional Director of accused no. 1 company in the year 2010 for a limited period of one year and claimed that she had no role in the day-to- day affairs of the company. She alleged that she had signed certain blank papers in good faith and that accused nos. 2 and 3 had misused the same. She further stated that none of the cheques in question bore her signatures and denied any liability towards the cheques.
20. During her cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that she Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:01 CT Cases 39635/2016 +0530 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.7 of 17 was aware that her name was shown as a Director of accused no. 1 company and that she had never objected to the same. She further admitted that she had given consent for her name to be used as a Director and that no documentary proof had been placed on record by her to establish her alleged resignation from the accused company. DW-1 also admitted that despite having knowledge that her name continued in the records of the company, she did not take any steps before the Registrar of Companies to have her name struck off.
21. DW-1 further admitted that she was authorised, as per her appointment letter, to sign documents on behalf of accused no. 1 company, though she claimed that such authority was exercised only during the initial period. She admitted that no FIR had been registered on her complaints alleging forgery and cheating and that she had not pursued any effective legal remedy in that regard. She also admitted that she was shown as a Director in official records during the relevant period and that she had not challenged the same before any competent authority. She further stated that many of the statements made by her before the Court were on the instructions of her husband and denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
ARGUMENTS
22. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had duly supplied printing material to the accused company pursuant to orders placed by its Directors and that the Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.12 17:03:07 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.8 of 17 cheques in question were issued towards discharge of the outstanding and legally enforceable liability. It was submitted that the cheques were presented for encashment but were dishonoured, whereafter a statutory legal demand notice was duly issued, despite which the accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period. Learned counsel further contended that accused nos. 1 to 3 had cross-examined the complainant witness but thereafter stopped appearing before the Court and were consequently declared proclaimed persons after recording of their statements under Section 313 CrPC. It was further argued that accused no. 4 did not cross-examine the complainant witness at all. With respect to accused no. 4, learned counsel submitted that although she claimed to have been a Director only for one year and to have resigned thereafter, she neither disclosed the date of her alleged resignation nor placed any documentary proof on record. On the contrary, during her cross-examination as DW-1, accused no. 4 admitted that she was a Director of the accused company and that as per the records of the Registrar of Companies, her name continued as a Director during the relevant period. It was further submitted that although accused no. 4 claimed to have filed a police complaint alleging forgery, no FIR was registered and no effective action was taken thereon. Learned counsel also pointed out that the recovery proceedings arising out of the same transaction stood decreed in favour of the complainant, thereby further corroborating the existence of liability.
23. Ld. counsel for accused no. 4 argued that accused no. 4 Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:12 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.9 of 17 was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of accused no. 1 company and had ceased to be a Director after a period of one year. It was submitted that the cheques in question do not bear her signatures and that she had no role in the transactions between the complainant and accused nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel further contended that accused no. 4 had no knowledge of the business dealings in question and, therefore, could not be fastened with any liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was prayed that accused no. 4 be acquitted.
FINDINGS
24. It is a matter of record that accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 stopped appearing before the Court during the course of trial. Consequently, proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated against them and they were declared proclaimed persons vide order dated 09.04.2025. In view of their status as proclaimed persons, the proceedings qua accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 cannot be taken to their logical conclusion at this stage. Accordingly, no findings on merits are being returned against accused no. 2 and accused no. 3, and the proceedings qua them are kept pending, to be revived in accordance with law upon their appearance before the Court.
25. Once the issuance of the cheques drawn on the account of accused no. 1 company is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act come into operation in favour of the complainant, raising a presumption that the cheques Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:16 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.10 of 17 were issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Further, in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act, where the offence is committed by a company, the company itself is the principal offender. In the present case, the cheques in question were admittedly drawn on the bank account of accused no. 1 company and were issued in its name, thereby attracting the statutory presumptions against the company.
26. Accused no. 1 company has failed to rebut the aforesaid presumptions by leading any cogent or credible evidence. The complainant has placed on record documentary evidence in the form of invoices/bills raised in the ordinary course of business, which clearly reflect supply of printing material to accused no. 1 company. Despite cross-examination of the complainant witness on behalf of accused no. 1 company, the factum of business dealings and supply of goods could not be dislodged. Significantly, in the notice framed under Section 251 CrPC, accused no. 2, being a Director of accused no. 1 company, admitted the existence of business transactions with the complainant, which admission operates against the company.
27. The cheques issued on behalf of accused no. 1 company, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". Thereafter, the complainant duly issued a statutory legal demand notice to accused no. 1 company within the prescribed period. The service of legal notice upon the company has not been successfully controverted, and no payment was made by the company within the statutory period of Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 CT Cases 39635/2016 17:03:20 +0530 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.11 of 17 fifteen days. The failure of accused no. 1 company to make payment despite service of legal notice completes the chain of events contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act.
28. In view of the unrebutted statutory presumptions, the documentary evidence led by the complainant, the admission of business transactions by the Director of accused no. 1 company, and the failure of the company to discharge its liability within the statutory period, this Court is of the considered view that all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act stand duly established against accused no. 1 company.
29. The liability of a director or officer of the company flows from Section 141 of the Act. Section 141 provides that where an offence under Section 138 is committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. Thus, the liability of a director is vicarious in nature and arises only upon satisfaction of the statutory requirements contained in Section 141.
30. The legal position with respect to fastening liability upon a director under Section 141 stands well settled. In SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla [(2005) 8 SCC 89], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while mere designation as a director is not sufficient, the complaint must contain a specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:24 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.12 of 17 the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Once such an averment is made, the burden shifts upon the accused director to rebut the same by leading cogent evidence. Further, in Anita Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 661], the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the liability of a director under Section 141 is derivative and vicarious, and once the company is arraigned as an accused, its directors may also be proceeded against subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions. It has been further held by Hon'ble Apex Court that to escape such vicarious liability, the director must place on record sterling and unimpeachable evidence showing that he or she was not in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time.
31. Turning to the facts of the present case, the complaint specifically avers that accused nos.2 to 4 were directors of accused no.1 company and were in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day and financial affairs of the company. These averments satisfy the foundational requirement of Section 141. Accused no.4 has not disputed the existence of these averments.
32. The documentary material placed on record further shows that accused no.4 was reflected as an Additional Director of accused no.1 company in the records of the Registrar of Companies. In her testimony as DW-1, accused no.4 admitted her appointment as a director and also admitted that she had given consent for such appointment. She further admitted that, as per the appointment resolution, she was authorised to sign Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:28 CT Cases 39635/2016 +0530 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.13 of 17 documents on behalf of the company. Significantly, she did not dispute that her name continued to appear as a director in the ROC records during the relevant period.
33. The principal defence taken by accused no.4 is that she was appointed only for a period of one year and that she believed her directorship had come to an end thereafter. However, this defence does not stand scrutiny. Accused no.4 has not produced any resignation letter, nor has she placed on record any statutory form or acknowledgment from the Registrar of Companies evidencing cessation of her directorship. During cross- examination, she admitted that she did not take any steps to ensure that her name was removed from the records of the Registrar of Companies. It is a settled position of law that a director continues to hold office, and correspondingly continues to bear statutory responsibility, until resignation or cessation is duly notified and recorded in accordance with law. Mere belief or internal understanding regarding cessation of directorship has no legal effect.
34. Accused no.4 has also taken a defence that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and that all business dealings were handled by accused nos.2 and 3. However, apart from her bald assertion, no cogent evidence has been led to substantiate this plea. On the contrary, her own testimony reveals that she was authorised to sign company documents and that she continued to be associated with the company as a director and shareholder. In the absence of Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:32 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.14 of 17 unimpeachable evidence showing complete dissociation from the affairs of the company, such a defence cannot rebut the statutory presumption of responsibility arising under Section 141.
35. Much emphasis has been placed by accused no.4 on a legal notice issued by her to accused no.2 alleging misuse of her position and misrepresentation regarding removal of her name from the company records. This document, however, is dated much after the dishonour of the cheques and the initiation of the present proceedings. The said notice is clearly a post-facto and self-serving document. It does not amount to proof of resignation, nor does it have the effect of negating the statutory liability which had already crystallised at the time of commission of the offence. At best, it reflects inter se disputes between the directors, which cannot prejudice the statutory rights of the complainant under the NI Act.
36. Accused no.4 has also alleged forgery and claimed to have made a police complaint. However, she admitted during cross- examination that no FIR was registered and no action was taken on such complaint. Unsubstantiated allegations of forgery, without any supporting outcome or independent evidence, cannot be accepted as a valid defence to a prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act.
37. When the testimony of DW-1 is read in its entirety along with the defence documents relied upon by accused no.4, it becomes evident that while her appointment and continuation as Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:37 CT Cases 39635/2016 +0530 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.15 of 17 director are admitted, her alleged resignation or lack of responsibility remains unproved. The defence evidence is inconsistent, unsupported by statutory records, and insufficient to rebut the presumption arising under Section 141 of the Act.
38. In view of the specific averments in the complaint, the continued reflection of accused no.4 as a director in the ROC records, her own admissions regarding appointment and authorisation, and her failure to prove lawful cessation or complete dissociation from the affairs of the company, this Court holds that accused no.4 was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused no.1 company at the relevant time. Consequently, accused no.4 is held vicariously liable for the offence committed by accused no.1 company under Section 138 of the NI Act, by virtue of Section 141 thereof.
CONCLUSION
39. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court holds that the complainant has successfully established all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against accused no.1 company. Further, it has been duly proved that accused no.4 was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused no.1 company and is thus vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, accused no.1 company and accused no.4 are held guilty and are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12 17:03:41 +0530 CT Cases 39635/2016 Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.16 of 17 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
40. It is again clarified that no findings on merits are being returned qua accused no.2 and accused no.3, as they have been declared proclaimed persons vide order dated 09.04.2025 and the proceedings against them remain pending to be revived in accordance with law upon their appearance.
This Judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears the signature of Ld. Presiding Officer.
Copy of this Judgment be given dasti.
A copy of the order be uploaded on District Courts website.
Details of New Delhi Legal Services Authority Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
(Land line No. 011-23232273) Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed by today i.e. on 12.02.2026.
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.12
17:03:46
+0530
(Siddhant Kumar)
JMFC (NI Act-05) New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
12.02.2026
CT Cases 39635/2016
Arjun Kohli Vs. Triakash Ctp Prints Solutions Page No.17 of 17