Interim Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: 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: pradeep.pandey@yatra.com
Mobile No. of the AR: 9953590087
3. Name of the accused, parentage
and residential address
: Sanjeev Rana
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
-- 1 of 18 --
Deenpur Najafgarh, Delhi-110043
Email: rslogistics1259@gmail.com
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
-- 2 of 18 --
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
number
Cheque
amount
Date of the
cheque
Cheque
drawn on
Date of
return
memo
Reasons
for
dishonour
000044 Rs.2,00,000/- 23.11.2022 Indian
Overseas
Bank
02.12.2022 Funds
Insufficient
000045 Rs.2,00,000/- 23.11.2022 Indian
Overseas
Bank
02.12.2022 Funds
Insufficient
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
-- 3 of 18 --
Overseas
Bank
Insufficient
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
-- 4 of 18 --
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.
No.
DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
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
-- 5 of 18 --
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.
No.
DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
1. Ledger account maintained by the accused DW1/1
7. DW-2, Sh. Paras Nath Jha has brought the following documents on record:
S.
No.
DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
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
-- 6 of 18 --
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
-- 7 of 18 --
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
-- 8 of 18 --
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
-- 9 of 18 --
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
-- 10 of 18 --
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
-- 11 of 18 --
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
-- 12 of 18 --
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
-- 13 of 18 --
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
-- 14 of 18 --
(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
-- 15 of 18 --
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
-- 16 of 18 --
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
-- 17 of 18 --
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.
(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
-- 18 of 18 --