Full Order Text
Order 15 · 23 Jul 2026 · CNR DLCT020108122024
Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT Pdf Text: CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -1- IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT-04, DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI Presided over by: Mr. Danveer CC No.: CC NI ACT/4731/2024 Unique Case ID No.: DLCT020108122024 In the matter of: Mr. Surender Kumar Jain, S/o Mr. Kailash Chand Jain, R/o 3C/34, 3rd Floor, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005. …Complainant Versus Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Proprietor : M/s J.K. International, 47, Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. Also at : Mr. Vikas Agarwal, S/o Mr. Arjun Lal Agarwal, R/o House No.13, Rajpur Road, Delhi-110054. …Accused -- 1 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -2- Date of institution 26.04.2024 Offence complained Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Plea of Accused (Guilty/Not guilty) Not guilty Date of filing 06-04-2024 Date of decision 23.07.2026 Method of trial Summons Final order (Conviction/Acquittal) Conviction Offences proved (if any) Sec. 138 NI Act TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE .............................................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD ................................................................................................................... 4 COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE.............................................................................................................................. 5 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED ............................................................................................................................... 5 DEFENCE EVIDENCE ....................................................................................................................................... 6 FINAL ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 6 LAW ON THE POINT ....................................................................................................................................... 8 INGREDIENT(S) IN DISPUTE ............................................................................................................................ 9 FINDINGS ON APPLYING THE LAW TO THE PRESENT FACTS ........................................................................... 10 Law as to existence of legally enforceable debt/other liability.. ................................................................10 Examina;on of the facts of the present case.. ...........................................................................................11 FINAL DECISION ........................................................................................................................................... 17 -- 2 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -3- JUDGMENT BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The version of the complainant is that the complainant is a businessman having a cloth business and the accused is also dealing in clothes related business. It is averred that the complainant and the accused shared good friendly relations and in September 2021, the accused approached the complainant at his shop and requested a financial assistance of ₹5 lakhs for a short time period. As per the complainant, he advanced a sum of ₹5 lakhs as a friendly loan to the accused and a promissory note was also executed by the accused for the same. The case of the complainant is that the said loan was for a period of six months, and that it was not repaid within the stipulated period. The case of the complainant is that despite the repeated requests of the complainant, the friendly loan was not repaid by the accused and finally in the month of December 2023, the accused issued a cheque in discharge of the liability of friendly loan, bearing cheque number 110309 dated 30.01.2024, in the sum of ₹5 lakhs, drawn on UCO bank (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘cheque-in-question’). The complainant then states to have presented the cheque-in-question for payment, but the same was returned by his banker as dishonoured with the remarks ‘Account closed’. Thereafter, the complainant states that he served a legal demand notice on the accused calling on him to pay the amount of the cheque-in-question. The case of the complainant is that the same was not paid within 15 days of the receipt/deemed receipt of the said demand notice by the accused, and hence, the present complaint came to be filed alleging the commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘NI Act’). 2. When the accused entered appearance, substance of accusations was stated to him, to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’. He stated that he does not know the complainant and have never met him prior to the present case. Further, that -- 3 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -4- the cheque in question bears his signatures, but the other particular have not been filled by him. Further, that the cheque-in-question was given by him in the year 2014 to one Mr. Swadesh Bhatia, who was an agent in the Gandhinagar cloth market. The accused further stated that he has already made payment to the said agent and he does not owe any liability to the complainant. Further, that he has been falsely implicated it in the present case. The accused also stated that he had received the legal demand notice from the complainant and had duly replied to the same through his counsel. It was also stated by the accused that in the year 2014, he had closed his business and cleared the dues of persons and the said agent had told him that he would return his cheque to him, but the same has not been returned by him. TABLE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD 3. In compliance to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State Of Gujarat (2025 INSC 1433)”, the table of evidence of the case is as follows: Witnesses Sr. No. Witness Identification number Name of the witness Description 1. CW-1 Mr. Surender Kumar Jain Complainant 2. DW-1 ASI Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, New Security Line, PS Bapu Dham Official witness from police 3. DW-2 Mr. Uttam Singh, Senior Manager, Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi Branch Official witness from bank Documents -- 4 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -5- Sr. No. Document Identification number Proved by 1. Ex. CW-1/1 (OSR) (Promissory note) CW-1 2. Ex. CW-1/2 (Cheque-in-question) CW-1 3. Ex. CW-1/3 (Bank return memo) CW-1 4. Ex. CW-1/4 (Legal demand notice) CW-1 5. Ex. CW-1/5 and Ex. CW-1/6 (Postal receipt) CW-1 6. Ex. CW-1/7 (Tracking report) CW-1 7. Ex. DW-1/1 (Colly.) (Copy of the destruction order) DW-1 8. Ex. DW-1/2 (Copy of GD Entry) DW-1 9. Ex. DW-2/1 (Account statement of account no. 256802100002209) DW-2 10. Ex. DW-2/2 (Record of cheque no. 110310) DW-2 COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE 4. The complainant became a witness for his case (as CW-1) and submitted his evidence by way of affidavit. The same is examination-in-chief of the said witness as per Sec. 145 NI Act. Also, the same is a permitted exercise for the complainant witnesses as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “In Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881”1. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Sec. 313 r/w Sec. 281 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. As per the accused, he does not know the complainant and has never met him before the present case. Further, that he had not taken any loan of ₹5 lakhs from the complainant. Further, that the promissory note was given as security to Mr. Swadesh Bhatia in the year 2013, along with the cheque in question. Further, that the 1 (2021) 16 SCC 116. -- 5 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -6- complainant had harassed him in the year 2020 against which, he had also filed a police complaint. The accused further stated that he had closed his firm and bank account in the year 2013 itself and he does not owe the liability of the amount mentioned on the cheque in question. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 6. The matter was then listed for defence evidence. The defence got examined two witnesses. FINAL ARGUMENTS 7. Ld. Counsel for Complainant contended that: 7.1. The complainant has presumptions in his favour under section 139 and section 118 of the NI Act. Further, that the onus to rebut them is on the accused which he has failed to do so. 7.2. The claim of the complainant is based on a document Ex. CW1/1. Further, that the accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque in question. 7.3. The accused has stated that he had replied to the legal demand notice, but no such reply has been placed on record by him. It is contended that the accused has spoken a lie before the court at the time of framing of notice. 7.4. The accused has not been able to prove any defence. In particular, it is submitted that the accused has not been able to prove the purpose for which the cheque in question was given as alleged security to Mr. Swadesh Bhatia. 7.5. The accused has not examined Mr. Swadesh Bhatia as a defence witness and hence, the defence of security cheque has not been proven. 7.6. The accused has taken contradictory stands. Reference in this context is firstly made to the statement of the accused at the time of framing of notice that he does not know the complainant. Further, that the same stand was repeated at the time of cross-examination of the complainant witness CW- -- 6 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -7- 1. On the other side, reference is made to the statement of the accused under Section 351 BNSS Where he had stated that he had filed a police complaint against the complainant for an incident in the year 2020. It is contended that the contradictory stands of the accused show that he has taken a false defence which does not exist and that he is not reliable. 7.7. The defence witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2, do not prove any defence. 7.8. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and no infirmity has been brought out from the testimony of CW-1. 8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that the complainant has failed to prove their case and that the accused has been able to rebut the statutory presumptions, and hence, prayed for an order of acquittal. It has been contended that: 8.1. The accused had filed a complaint against the complainant before the Delhi police in the year 2020 and the record of the same has been destroyed by the police after it became old. It is contended that the GD entry brought by DW-1 which is on record as exhibit DW-1/2 proves that such a complaint was filed. 8.2. The accused has been able to prove that he had closed his account in the year 2014 itself. It is submitted that the cheque in question was presented in the year 2024 and at that time, the account of the accused on which the cheque in question has been drawn was already closed and hence, a case under Section 138 NI Act cannot be made out. Particularly, it is contended that the reason of dishonour of the cheque in question, that is, ‘account closed’, is not covered within the scope of Section 138 NI Act. Reference in this context is made to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in “Joseph vs. Philip Joseph (Criminal A. No. 577/1995)”. 8.3. CW-1 has admitted that there was a police complaint between the parties. It is argued that it is improbable that when such a history is present for the -- 7 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -8- parties where they were involved in a case before the police, that the complainant would advance a friendly loan to the accused. 8.4. The complainant has not proven the source of funds. 8.5. DW-2 bank witness has proven that the cheque number ending with 310 was honoured in the year 2013/2014 itself and hence, it is improbable that a cheque with the cheque number ending with 309, would be dealt in the year 2024 as both these cheques belong to the same series. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that: 9.1. The account being closed is one of the circumstances covered within the expanded scope of Section 138 NI act. Reference in this context is made to the pronouncement of the honourable Supreme Court of India in “M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs State Of Gujarat & Ors (2012 (13) SCC 375)”. 9.2. The financial capacity of the complainant was never challenged by the defence during the trial. 9.3. It can never be said that the issuance of the cheque in question in the year 2024 is improbable. It is contended that the cheque in question was issued by the accused and he has also admitted the signatures on the same. It is contended that it is for the accused to answer as to how the same came to be issued in the year 2024. 9.4. The accused has not stepped in the witness box, and hence, an adverse inference be drawn against him. LAW ON THE POINT 10. On a reading of the provisions of Section 138 NI Act it is clear that the ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under the provision are : (i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by them in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account, and the same must have been -- 8 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -9- presented for payment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (ii) The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; (iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid; either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice; If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied then the person who has drawn the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence. Reference in this context may be made, inter alia, to “Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 745]”. INGREDIENT(S) IN DISPUTE 11. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the ingredients mentioned at (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) above. This is because drawing of the cheque by the accused and the presentation of the same by the complainant are not disputed. Further, the return of the cheque as dishonoured by bank is not disputed (reference in this context may be made to the bank returning memo, non- -- 9 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -10- disputing of the document by the accused and the provisions of Sec. 146 of the NI Act). However, the scope of Sec. 138 NI Act and particularly, the ambit of its coverage has been challenged by the accused. 12. Further, ingredient (iv) above also stands satisfied as the accused did not dispute the service of the legal demand notice. Furthermore, the non-payment in response to the legal demand notice is also not disputed, and hence, ingredient (v) above also stands fulfilled. 13. The parties are at dispute in relation to ingredient (ii) above, i.e., the existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Further, there is a challenge to the ambit of Sec. 138 NI Act insofar as the reason of dishonour is concerned. FINDINGS ON APPLYING THE LAW TO THE PRESENT FACTS Law as to existence of legally enforceable debt/other liability.. 14. The law on the point of existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability is well settled. In this context, the provisions of Sec. 139 NI Act read with Sec. 118 (a) NI Act assume importance. Sec. 139 NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that they received the cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Section 118 (a) NI Act raises a presumption that a negotiable instrument (including a cheque) has been drawn or made for consideration. 15. Both the provisions (Sec. 139 and 118 (a) NI Act) belong to the popular class of ‘shall be presumed’ which is clearly defined in Sec. 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18722. As per the said provision of the evidence law, the court has to mandatorily presume a fact which is stated by any law to be ‘shall presumed’, but the presumption is taken away if the contrary is proved. In this context, 2 Corresponding provision under Sec. 2(l) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. -- 10 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -11- the accused may lift the presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability in either of the two ways; by shaking the case of the complainant in this respect or by leading positive defence evidence in the same regard. 16. The law on the point of standard of proof applicable for the defence is also well settled. Reference in this context may be made to the definition of ‘proved’ as per the evidence law3: ““proved”.—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;” Further reference in the context of presumptions under NI Act, may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors., 2008 (8) SCALE 680”, which was relied on by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898)”. In the said judgments, it was held that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumptions by the defence is that of preponderance of probabilities. Whether in a case, the defence has been able to discharge that onus or not is a question of fact, which has to be examined on case to case basis. Examination of the facts of the present case.. 17. The first examination is in the lines of finding out whether the defence has been able to point out any major contradictions or infirmities in the case of the complainant. Secondly, whether the defence has brought any defence evidence 3 Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 2(j) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. -- 11 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -12- on record to rebut the presumptions that exist in favour of the complainant and to create a reasonable doubt in the case of the complainant. 18. The case of the complainant has been stated in the examination in chief by way of affidavit of the complainant/CW1. The said witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused. In the cross-examination, questions were put to the witness concerning, inter-alia, the aspects of the complainant knowing the accused, filing of income tax returns by the complainant, a police complaint filed by the complainant against the accused previously in P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, the filling of particulars on the cheque in question, closure of the bank account of the accused in the year 2013. Suggestions were also put to the witness on multiple points, most of which were denied by the witness. 19. The primary contention raised by the defence is that the reason of dishonour of the cheque in question is “account closed” and that the same is not covered within the ambit of section 138 NI Act. 19.1. In the opinion of this court, this contention on part of the defence ignores the force of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs State Of Gujarat & Ors (2012 (13) SCC 375)”, wherein it was observed that: “…16. The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in Magma case that the expression "amount of money…is insufficient" appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such "as account closed", "payment stopped", "referred to the drawer" are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the "signatures do not match" or that the "image is not -- 12 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -13- found", which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act:…” 19.2. Accordingly, this contention of the defence is rejected as the dishonour of a cheque for the reason ‘account closed’ is very well covered within the scope of Sec. 138 NI Act. 19.3. In light of there being clear judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on this subject, the submission concerning there being a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on this aspect need not be examined. 20. The next contention raised by the defence is that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan and the source of funds has not been proven by the complainant. In this context, the rebuttal submission of learned counsel for the complainant has merit. During the trial, the financial capacity of the complainant was never challenged by the accused. In the cross- examination of CW-1, a question was put to CW-1 as to whether the loan in question has been shown in the income tax returns of the complainant to which he had responded that he has not so shown as the money belonged to his wife. Thereafter, the only question put to CW-1 by the defence was as to what does the wife of the complainant do. The said question in no way amounts to challenging the financial capacity of the complainant. It is also relevant to mention that due to the presumptions, the initial onus is on the accused and it is not for the complainant to prove his financial capacity himself without there being any challenge on the same by the defence. 21. Next contention raised by the accused is that the cheque in question was issued to Mr. Swadesh Bhatia and not to the complainant and that he does not even know the complainant. 21.1. In the opinion of this court, this defence has not been proved by the accused. On the other hand, the material on record suggests otherwise. At -- 13 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -14- the time of framing of notice, the accused had stated that he does not know the complainant and has never seen him before the filing of the present case. Such a stand was also repeated at the time of statement of accused under Section 351 BNSS. However, at a later stage of statement under Section 351 BNSS, the accused himself stated that the complainant had harassed him in the year 2020 against which, the accused had filed a police complaint against the complainant. In this context, the defence also called DW-1, a police official with the official record of GD entry bearing number 92A. This transaction of a police complaint by the accused and against the complainant, concerning the year 2020, is in conflict with the stand that the complainant was not known to the accused prior to filing of the present case. This is because the present case came to be filed only in the year 2024. 21.2. Further, DW-1 stated that the record of the police complaint has been destroyed as per the police rules. A copy of the GD entry was brought on record as Ex. DW-1/2, as per which a complaint was filed by the accused. However, the name of the person against whom the complaint was filed remains unclear. Further, there is no the defence evidence to support any such thing. Furthermore, it does not show as to what was the complaint which was filed and the bearing that it has on the present case. Nothing is shown which would connect the present facts to the said alleged complaint and the bearing that it may have on the liability of the accused. 21.3. In light of the above, the fact of there being a previous police complaint does not assume any relevance. 21.4. In this context, it is also relevant to mention that a police complaint was also talked about by CW-1 in his cross-examination, which was stated by him to have been settled on the basis of a compromise. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the complainant/CW-1 was not thrown a doubt through cross-examination on any of the aspects concerning the said -- 14 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -15- police complaint. The aspect of a compromise for the said police complaint was stated by the complainant/CW-1. In that light, the argument raised by the defence that due to there being a previous history of police complaint, it is improbable that the present loan in question would be advanced by the complainant, is rejected. 22. From the cross examination of CW-1, no major infirmity has been brought out. From the cross examination itself, the presumptions have not been rebutted and no reasonable doubt has been created in the case of the complainant. 23. The next contention on behalf of the accused is that DW-2 was examined on behalf of the defence. As per DW-2, the cheque bearing number 110310 was used in the year 2014 itself. Further, that cheque bearing number 110308 was not presented to the account of the accused. In light of these depositions of DW-2, it is contended that it is improbable that the cheque in question bearing cheque number 110309 would be used by the accused in the year 2024 as the accused had used the other cheque of the same series bearing cheque number 110310 in 2014 itself. It is contended that the accused had closed his bank account in the year 2014 itself and hence, the said cheque could not have been used in the year 2024 by the accused. 23.1. In the opinion of this court, without any context, and any other material on record, this aspect alone cannot wash away the effect of presumptions that exist in favour of the complainant. It is not the case of the accused that the cheque in question does not belong to his account or that it was not issued from his account. That being so, it is for him to explain as to why it was not deposited to the bank at the time of closing the bank account in the year 2014 itself. 23.2. There is no legal aspect to be dealt in the contention that a cheque bearing a particular number of a particular series cannot be used at a distant time than another cheque of the same series. Such aspects remain in the -- 15 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -16- exclusive knowledge of the account holder or the person who handles the cheque instruments from the account on which they are drawn. Without any context or other material on record supporting such an inference, this aspect alone cannot lead to any conclusion, even on the applicable standard of proof for the defence. 23.3. Further, the bank witness DW-2 deposed that one other cheque of the same series, bearing cheque number 110308 was never presented, however, cheque bearing number 110310 was used in 2014. The present case contains cheque bearing number 110309, and one cheque from the same series bearing cheque number 110308 was also not used. 24. Before concluding the judgement, this court deems it appropriate to deal with the remaining arguments of the parties. 24.1. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the accused is not stepped into witness box as a defence witness and hence, an adverse inference be drawn against him. This court does not agree with this contention. It is for a party to decide as to how they wish to prove their case and merely because the accused has not stepped in the witness box, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. Reference in this context may also be made to Sec. 353 (1) (b) BNSS, whereby a specific prohibition against such an inference has been put. 24.2. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that the accused has not taken any steps to get examined Mr. Sarvesh Bhatia as a witness. It is one of the relevant circumstances that a defence was taken by the accused that the cheque in question was given to Mr. Swadesh Bhatia, however, such a defence has not been proven. Further, it has also not been proven as to how, for what purpose and in what circumstances the cheque-in- question was given to the said person Mr. Swadesh Bhatia. 24.3. It is also one of the relevant circumstances that the accused had stated at the time of framing of notice that he had duly replied to the legal demand -- 16 of 17 -- CC No.: 4731/2024 Surender Kumar Jain vs. Vikash Agarwal -17- notice. However, no such copy has been brought on record. It has also not been proven otherwise that he had replied to the legal demand notice. 25. This court concludes that the presumptions that existed in favour of the complainant have remained unrebutted and no reasonable doubt has been created in the story of the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained unshaken. Further, the accused has taken contradictory stands none of which have been proven as per evidence law. FINAL DECISION 26. In light of the above, the accused ‘Mr. Vikash Agarwal’ is held guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act in the present case. 27. The details of the office of DLSA, Central, THC have been annexed separately. Pronounced in open court. Total Pages: 17 (Danveer) JMFC (NI Act)-04, Central, THC 23.07.2026 -- 17 of 17 --