Delhi District Court
Conner Institute Of Health Care And ... vs Meena on 11 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA SINGH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-08, SOUTH-WEST,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of : CC No. 5321/2019
CNR No. : DLCT020133892019
CONNER INSTITUTE OF HEALTH CARE
& MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.
B-1/1, Pusa Road,
New Delhi-110060
...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. MEENA
W/o Narayan Dass
713/1, Gali No. 5, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi-110005
2. DEV ARUN
S/o Suresh Kumar
A-11, DDA Flat, Vivekanand Puri,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110007
...ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
1. Date of institution of the case : 14.05.2019
2. Offence complained of : Section 138 N.I. Act
3. Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
4. Judgment reserved on : 29.05.2025
5. Decision qua accused : Convicted
6. Date of Judgment : 11.07.2025 CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 1/15 Digitally signed by Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:16:27 +0530
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act) by the complainant company against the accused no.1 and the accused no.2 for dishonour of cheques bearing no. 239140 dated 25.02.2019 for a sum of Rs.
31,000/- and 239141 dated 25.03.2019 for a sum of Rs. 30,945/- both drawn on Punjab National Bank, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the cheques').
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a company running a hospital namely Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi. The accused no.2 availed treatment in the said hospital from 22.01.2019 to 02.02.2019. Towards part payment of bill raised by the complainant, the accused no.1 who is a mother-in-law of the accused no.2 issued the cheques in question. Upon presentation, the cheques in question returned unpaid with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque return memos dated 12.03.2019 and 26.03.3019. A legal demand notice dated 08.04.2019 was sent to the accused by speed post and the same was duly served upon the accused. Despite service of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within prescribed period of 15 days. Hence, the present complaint has been filed.
3. The authorized representative of the complainant company (hereinafter referred to as 'the AR') led pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and on finding prima facie case, the accused persons were summoned vide order dated 21.05.2019.
4. As per order dated 15.01.2020, Ld. Counsel for complainant sought permission to drop proceedings qua the accused no.2. Upon recording separate statement of counsel for complainant, the proceedings against the accused no.2 was dropped. Accordingly, the accused no.2 was acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act qua the cheques in question. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further only against the accused no.1.
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 2/15 Digitally
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:16:36
+0530
5. On appearance, the accused no.1 was served with the notice of accusation under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), to which the accused no.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In her defence recorded on the same day, the accused no.1 admitted her signature on the cheques, however, denied filling any particulars on the cheques. The accused no.1 stated that she had received legal notice. The accused no.1 further stated that "My son-in-law was admitted in the complainant hospital. I had made some payment to the complainant towards the health care services. However, some payment was remaining. My son took this blank signed cheques from me as the complainant hospital refused to discharge my son-in-law if due payment is not provided to them. Further I have liability of the cheque amount as stated by the complainant. However, I wish to place on record that the complainant hospital has charged exorbitantly for the medicine administered to the patient and raised bills accordingly"
6. The AR of the complainant examined himself as CW1 and adopted his pre-
summoning evidence affidavit as post-summoning evidence which is Ex. CW1/A and relied upon following documents:
- Certificate of incorporation of the complainant Ex. CW1/1 company Ex. CW1/2 - Board resolution Ex. CW1/3 - Original cheque bearing no. 239140 Ex. CW1/4 - Return memo dated 12.03.2019 Ex. CW1/5 - Original cheque bearing no. 239141 Ex. CW1/6 - Return memo dated 26.03.2019 Ex. CW1/7 (Colly) - Legal notice dated 08.04.2019 and postal receipts Ex. CW1/8 (OSR) - Summary bill
7. On 15.01.2020, an oral request for allowing right to cross-examine the com- plainant/CW1 under Section 145 (2) of the NI Act was made on behalf of the accused no.1 and the same was allowed. Thereafter, CW1 was examined, cross- examined and discharged. Upon recording separate statement of AR of the com-
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 3/15 Digitally
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:16:46
+0530
plainant, the complainant evidence was closed on 10.02.2023.
8. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.03.2023 and all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused no.1, and she was granted an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against her at trial. While explaining the circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the accused no.1 stated without oath that the cheques bear her signatures and that she had not filled any other particulars on the cheques. The accused no.1 stated that she might have received the legal notice and the address on the legal notice is cor- rect. She further stated that "The amount of the bill Ex. CW1/8 is exorbitant and I am not liable to pay the bill amount. The cheque in question was given on the request of the complainant as the condition for discharge of Dev Arun. I had given only one cheque no. 239141 Ex. CW1/5. I do not know how the com- plainant came into possession of other cheque. My son had given some amount at the time of admission of Dev Arun and some payment was also made at the time of his discharge. Complainant has charged exorbitant amount for medicines which are available at much cheaper rates outside." She further stated that she has some liability but not to the extent of cheque amount. On being asked, whether the accused wants to lead defence evidence, the accused no.1 answered in the affirmative.
9. Thereafter, an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. and list of witnesses were filed on behalf of the accused no.1 and the same was allowed. The accused no.1 examined herself as DW1 and she was cross-examined and discharged. The ac- cused no.1 examined her son namely Sh. Tarun Kumar as DW2 and her daughter Smt. Ritu as DW3. DW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW2/A and was cross-examined and discharged. DW3 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW3/A and was cross-examined and discharged. Upon recording a separate statement of the accused, defence evidence was closed.
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 4/15 Digitally
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:16:58
+0530
10. During final arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that signature on the cheques are admitted by the accused no.1 and hence, presumption is raised under Section 139 of the NI Act in his favour. It is further argued that the accused no.1 has taken contradictory defences at different stages of the proceeding. It is further argued that the accused no.1 has failed to rebut the presumptions raised under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act and therefore, prayed for conviction.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued the cheque in question was issued to the complainant at the time of admission of Sh. Dev Arun to the hospital for security purpose. It is further argued that despite full and final payment of the bill, the complainant has failed to return the cheques in question to the accused no.1. It is further argued that the case of the complainant is weak and the same is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused no.1. It is therefore, submitted that the accused no.1 deserves to be acquitted under Section 138 of the NI Act.
12. I have heard arguments on behalf of both the parties, perused the record, and have considered the issue at hand.
13. The ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel MANU/SC/0829/2021, which reads as below:
"25. The ingredients of the offence under Section 138 are:
(i) The drawing of a cheque by person on an account maintained by him with the banker for the payment of any amount of money to another from that account;
(ii) The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability;
(iii) Presentation of the cheque to the bank;
(iv) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank as unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account;
(v) A notice by the payee or the holder in due course making a demand for the payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 5/15 Digitally Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:17:05 +0530 receipt of information from the bank in regard to the return of the cheque; and
(vi) The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice."
14. The above-mentioned ingredients are to be satisfied cumulatively. Under Section 138 of the NI Act, the drawer of cheque can be held guilty only if all the above- mentioned ingredients are fulfilled.
15. In the present case, the cheques which are Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/5 are said to have been issued by the accused no.1, and they are said to bear the signatures of the accused no.1. The cheque return memos dated 12.03.2019 and 26.03.2019 which are Ex. CW1/4 and Ex. CW1/6 respectively provide the reason for dishonour as 'Funds Insufficient'. The line of cross-examination adopted by the accused no.1 for CW1 does not in any manner dispute the signature of the accused no.1 on Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/5. This is perhaps for the reason that the accused no.1, both at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused no.1 has stated that the signature found on the cheques Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/5 are her own signature. Further, the said cheques are dated 25.02.2019 and 25.03.2019 and the same were returned vide return memos dated 12.03.2019 and 26.03.2019 respectively, which proves that the cheques were presented within the period of validity. As per Section 146 of the NI Act, the fact of dishonour of cheque is presumed upon production of bank's slip having the official mark denoting that the cheque in question has been dishonoured. A presumption is raised in favour of complainant as the cheques in question were dishonoured vide duly stamped return memos dated 12.03.2019 and 26.03.2019 for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Therefore, the burden now shifts upon the accused no.1 to rebut this presumption.
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 6/15 Digitally
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:17:13
+0530
16. As regards making demand of payment of the cheque amount in writing, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 08.04.2019 which is Ex. CW1/7 (Colly) to the accused no.1. The original postal receipts which are Ex. CW1/7 (Colly) are dated 12.04.2019. The fact that the legal demand notice has made a clear and unambiguous demand for payment of the cheques in question is not disputed and is evident from a bare reading of the legal demand notice. The original postal receipt, Ex. CW1/7 (Colly) bears the name and part of address of the accused no.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Ors. MANU/SC/2263/2007 has held that when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'IEA') is available to the complainant and the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with. In her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused no.1 stated that she might have received the legal notice and the address on the legal notice is correct. This shows that the legal notice was issued at the correct address of the accused no.1. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 114 of the IEA. Moreover, in reply to notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C and during cross- examination of the accused no.1 as DW1, the accused no.1 stated that she had received legal notice which is Ex. CW1/7 (Colly). Therefore, it is can be safely concluded that the legal notice was duly received by the accused no.1.
17. It is not in dispute that the accused no.1 has not made the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the legal demand notice. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act as laid down in Gimpex Private Limited (supra) stand fulfilled.
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 7/15 Digitally
signed by
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:17:20
+0530
18. Coming to the second ingredient of the offence i.e. that the drawer of the cheque should have issued the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. It is the case of the complainant that from 22.01.2019 to 02.02.2019 Sh. Dev Arun availed treatment at the hospital run by the complainant company. Towards part payment of bill raised by the complainant company, the accused no.1 issued the cheques in question. However, upon presentation, the cheques in question were dishonoured.
19. As illustrated above, the factum of issuance of cheques which are Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/5 and signature of the accused no.1 on the said cheques is not denied by the accused no.1. Hence, Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act are required to be considered at this stage. The combined effect of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act is that a presumption can be raised that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved.
20. This issue is no longer res integra and has been well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee MANU/SC/0359/2001 has summarised this proposition as below:
"23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'."
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 8/15 Digitally Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:17:27 +0530
21. Thus, it is clear that once the execution of cheque is established, the law raises presumption in favour of payee or holder of cheque that the cheque was issued in discharge, wholly or in part, of legally enforceable debt or liability. The legal effect of the presumption raised is that the onus now shifts on the accused to raise a probable defence to rebut the statutory presumption. The manner in which an accused can rebut this presumption has been summarized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa MANU/SC/0502/2019 as under:
"23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:
(i) 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.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable 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 the parties but also 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 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
(emphasis supplied)
22. The accused may choose to rebut the presumption by relying 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. The standard of proof to rebut the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 9/15 Digitally Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:17:35 +0530 on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
23. In view of the above stated law, the admission of the accused no.1 regarding signature on the cheques in question, the statutory presumption is bound to be raised in terms of Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of, whole or in part of, legally enforceable debt or liability.
24. Once the statutory presumption is raised in favour of the complainant, the burden of proof now lies upon the accused no.1 to rebut the statutory presumption by raising probable defence either by leading defence evidence or by bringing out such facts on record in the cross-examination of AR of the complainant that could make the complainant's case improbable. If the accused no.1 is able to discharge her burden by raising probable defence, then and only then the onus will again shift back upon the complainant.
25. The complainant has relied upon a bill issued by the hospital which is Ex.
CW1/8 (OSR). During cross-examination of CW1, certain question pertaining to charges of injections not being mentioned separately in the bill which is Ex. CW1/8 (OSR) were put on behalf of the accused no.1. To this, CW1 stated that separate charges of injection are never mentioned in the summary bill. Perusal of Ex. CW1/8 (OSR) shows that bill of Rs. 2,61,943/- was raised for the treatment availed by Sh. Dev Arun and out of the said amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- is shown to have been received by the hospital. It is admitted by CW1 that Rs. 2,00,000/- was received by the hospital. In this respect, CW1 deposed that on 22.01.2019 Rs. 50,000/-, on 23/01/2019 Rs. 50,000/-, on 29.01.2019 Rs. 20,000/- and on 02.02.2019 Rs. 80,000/- was paid to the hospital. CW1 further deposed that receipt in respect of the said amounts were issued to the patient. CW1 further deposed that the cheques in question were taken at the time of discharge. CW1 CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 10/15 Digitally Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:17:45 +0530 denied the suggestion put to him that the cheques in question were taken at the time of admission of the patient.
26. Perusal of record shows that the accused no.1 has taken contradictory defences at different stages of trial. In her plea of defence recorded during framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C, the accused no.1 stated that she had made some payment to the complainant for the health care services provided to her son-in-
law and that her son took two blank signed cheques from her as the complainant hospital refused to discharge her son-in-law if the due payment is not made. She further stated that she has liability of the amount mentioned in the cheques as stated by the complainant. Whereas, in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused no.1 stated that the amount mentioned in the bill which is Ex. CW1/8 is exorbitant and she is not liable to pay the said amount. She further stated that she had only given the cheque which is Ex. CW1/5 and she does not know how the complainant came into possession of the other cheque. She further stated that she has some liability but not to the extent of cheque amount. Further, in her examination-in-chief as DW1, the accused no.1 deposed that she had issued two cheques to the complainant. She further deposed that she had made entire payment to the complainant on the assurance that the cheques will be returned back after receipt of the payment, however, the complainant had failed to return the cheques to her.
27. On the one hand the accused no1. admitted her liability to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques. On the other hand the accused no.1 stated that she has some liability towards the complainant but not to the extent of cheque amount. Pertinently, in her examination-in-chief, the accused no.1 stated that she had already made entire payment to the complainant. The different versions put forth by the accused do not inspire confidence.
28. At this stage, it is important to refer to testimony of the accused no.1/DW1. In her cross-examination, DW1 admitted that her son-in-law Sh. Dev Arun was CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 11/15 Digitally Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:17:53 +0530 admitted in the complainant hospital from 22.01.2019 to 02.02.2019. DW1 further admitted that the medicines, food, etc. were provided by the hospital itself. DW1 stated that some medicines were provided by her son. DW1 admitted that she had not filed any record of the medicines purchased by her son. From the testimony of DW1, the fact of admission of Sh. Dev Arun to the hospital from 22.01.2019 to 02.02.2019 and provision of health care services by the hospital to Sh. Dev Arun is established.
29. The accused no.1 has taken a defence that the complainant has charged exorbitantly for the medicines administered to her son-in-law Sh. Dev Arun. During her cross-examination, DW1 deposed that she is not aware about the treatment given to her son-in-law. DW1 further deposed that she had not compared the price of the medicines which were given to her son-in-law. The relevant extract of cross-examination of DW1 is reproduced here "I am not aware about the treatment given to my son in law at the complainant hospital...I have not compared the price of the medicines which were given to my son in law." DW1 admitted that she has not filed any record or document to show that the medicines provided to her son-in-law were exorbitantly high as compared to price of medicines outside the hospital. In the absence of knowledge of the treatment provided to Sh. Arun Dev and any document on record showing exorbitant prices of medicines, this defence of the accused no.1 is not believable. Moreover, the present proceedings may not be appropriate forum for adjudication of whether the prices charged by the complainant company are indeed exorbitant or not. Once the complainant admits the existence of some liability, the onus squarely shifts on the accused to show that the liability was lower than the amount mentioned in the cheques. Merely stating that the prices of medicines are exorbitant will not be sufficient to dispute and doubt the documentary evidence in the nature of the bill issued by the complainant which is Ex. CW1/8 (OSR).
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 12/15 Digitally Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by SHREYA SHREYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.11 16:18:02 +0530
30. In their evidence by way of affidavits which are Ex. DW2/A and Ex. DW3/A, DW2 and DW3 have deposed that Sh. Dev Arun was discharged from the hospital upon payment of full and final amount to the hospital. In his cross- examination conducted on 15.02.2025, DW2 admitted that he has not filed any document to show that full and final payment was made by the accused. Further, the part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with the breakup of amounts as well as date of payments have been admitted by CW1. However, in the cross- examination of CW1 the breakup of payment, mode of payment or date of payment have not been put to the witness in relation to the remaining amount of Rs. 61,943/-. These are material particulars to show full and final payment. Conspicuously, details such as breakup of payment, mode of payment and date of payment, etc. are also missing in the evidence of DW2 and DW3. In the absence of evidence proving full and final payment of the amount mentioned on the bill, the narration of DW2 and DW3 is not believable.
31. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, DW1 deposed that at the time of discharge, she had given the cheques in question to the complainant. DW1 further attempted to improve her case and ended up contradicting her own testimony by deposing that she was not aware as to when the said cheques were given to the complainant. The relevant extract of cross-examination of DW1 is reproduced here "At the time of discharge I have given the cheques in question to the complainant. Again said I am not aware when the said cheques were given to the complainant." Contrary to the said version of the accused no.1, DW2 deposed that he had deposited the cheques in question at the time of admission as security cheques. The relevant extract of cross-examination of DW2 is reproduced here "I deposited the cheques in question at the counter. I deposited these cheques at the time of admission. I deposited the blank cheques at the counter as security cheques and did not know at the times of admission that the billing amount would be corresponding to the cheques."
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 13/15 Digitally
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:18:10
+0530
32. As per the version of DW1, the cheques in question were given at the time of discharge of Sh. Dev Arun. Whereas, as per the version of DW2, the cheques in question were given as security cheques at the time of admission of Sh. Dev Arun. From the testimonies of DW1 and DW2, the version of defence witnesses are contradictory and do not inspire confidence.
33. In his evidence affidavit which is Ex. DW2/A, DW2 deposed that he made a demand for return of the cheques in question from the hospital. It is further deposed that the hospital informed him that the cheques were not traceable and he will be called once the same are traced. It is further deposed that the hospital failed to call him and return the cheques. Pertinently, no evidence has come on record to show that the accused no.1 had filed any police complaint or had taken any other action in law against the complainant for not returning the cheques in question and subsequently misusing the same. Therefore, the version put forth by DW2 is not believable.
34. From the above discussions, the accused no.1 has not been able to satisfactorily establish defence let alone prove it. Therefore, this court is of the view that the accused no.1 has failed raise probable defence.
35. Accordingly, the complainant company has been able to prove all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and there is no probable defence raised and established by the accused no.1. It is evident that the complainant company has been able to prove that the cheques in question i.e. cheques bearing no. 239140 dated 25.02.2019 for a sum of Rs. 31,000/- and 239141 dated 25.03.2019 for a sum of Rs. 30,945/- both drawn on Punjab National Bank, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005 which are Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/5 respectively were issued in discharge of legally recoverable liability owed by the accused no.1 towards the complainant company.
CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 14/15 Digitally
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:18:18
+0530
36. In view of the above, this court has arrived at a finding that the accused no.1 is guilty of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, accused no.1 Meena is hereby convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
37. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
38. Copy of Judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
SHREYA
SHREYA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.11
16:18:27
+0530
Announced in open court (Shreya Singh)
in the presence of accused JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-08
on 11.07.2025 SW/Dwarka Courts/Delhi
11.07.2025
The present judgment was reserved vide order dated 29.05.2025 passed in the Court of Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-05, Central District, Delhi and the same is in this Court in terms of Notification No. 16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI.E.2(a)/2025 dated 30.05.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding postings/transfers.
Digitally signed by SHREYASHREYA SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.07.11 16:18:34 +0530 (Shreya Singh) JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-08 SW/Dwarka Courts/Delhi 11.07.2025 CC No. 5321/2019 Conner Institute of Health Care & Medical Research Centre 15/15 Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena