Interim Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SURBHI SHARMA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (N.I. ACT)-DIGITAL COURT 02, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURT
CC No. 3884/2023
RK Plastics
Through it’s Proprietor Ramesh Kumar Goel
Khata no. 637, Khewat No. 582/496 RECT
Killa No. 17/6/2/2/4-3, Village Nathupur,
Sub-Tehsil Rai., Sonipat, Haryana.
… Complainant
Versus
M/s Ramdev agency
Through it’s Proprietor Sh. Bhagirath Ram
Having office at No. 6, Chakan, Shikra Pur Road,
Pune, Maharastra 410501.
…Accused
Offence Complained of: Sec- 138 of the NI Act
Plea of the Accused: Not guilty
Date of Institution: 18.09.2023
Arguments Heard On: 19.07.2025
Date of Judgment: 18.10.2025
Decision: CONVICTED
Page 1 of 6
SURBHI
SHARMA
Digitally
signed by
SURBHI
SHARMA
Date:
2025.10.18
16:45:38
+0530
-- 1 of 6 --
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Version of the complainant
Version of the Accused
Proceedings in the case
Evidences led by the parties
Decision thereon
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint was filed by the complainant under Section-138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act respectively for
the sake of brevity). Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose off the said
complaint.
VERSION OF THE COMPLAINANT
2. Accused is in the business of footwear. The complainant used to supply goods
to him through due invoices on credit basis. As on date 25.11.2022, the total
outstanding amount as per ledger account maintained by complainant stood at Rs.
6,00,288/-. In partial discharge of the said liability, accused had issued two cheques:
(i) bearing no. 365021 for Rs. 2,03,354/- dated 25.04.2023 and (ii) bearing no.
365020 for Rs. 1,85,399/- dated 13.04.2023, both drawn on IndusInd Bank to the
complainant. However, when the complainant presented the cheques in question in its
bank i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank, the same was returned dishonoured with the
remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque return memo dated 27.06.2023. Thereafter,
a legal demand notice dated 24.07.2021 was sent by the complainant to the accused
but despite the same, the accused did not pay the amount due upon him and hence the
present complaint.
Page 2 of 6SURBHI
SHARMA
Digitally signed
by SURBHI
SHARMA
Date:
2025.10.18
16:45:47
+0530
-- 2 of 6 --
VERSION OF THE ACCUSED
3. At the stage of framing of notice, accused appeared and admitted his liability
towards the complainant. He also admitted that he had signed the cheques in question
and issued the same to complainant towards due payment. Although, he did not plead
guilty and claimed trial. Whereas, at later stage of recording of his statement u/s 313
CrPC he stated that the cheques in question were given by him under pressure from
the police officials and that the said cheques were merely given for security purpose.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE
5. The present complaint was filed on 18.09.2023.
6. The accused was served with the notice of offence under Section 138 NI Act
on 15.01.2024. Notice u/s 251 CrPC for cheque bearing no. 365012 was not so
framed since the said cheque was stale (presented after expiry of period of
validity) and therefore does not fall under provisions of section 138 NI Act.
7. Complainant was examined in chief on 25.07.2024. The right of accused to
cross-examine complainant was closed vide order dated 15.01.2024.
8. Statement of accused was recorded on 07.02.2025.
9. Accused submitted that he does not wish to lead DE. Thus, the matter was
fixed for Final Arguments.
EVIDENCES LED BY THE PARTIES
Complainant : The complainant relied upon the following documents :
S No. Particulars Exhibit
1 GST of complainant firm Ex. CW1/1
2 GST of Accused firm Ex. CW1/2
3 Ledger account maintained by complainant Ex. CW1/3
4 Bank statement of complainant Ex. CW1/4a to
Ex. CW1/4c
5 Cheque No. 365021 Ex. CW1/5a
Page 3 of 6SURBHI
SHARMA
Digitally
signed by
SURBHI
SHARMA
Date:
2025.10.18
16:45:54
+0530
-- 3 of 6 --
6 Cheque No. 365012 Ex. CW1/5b
7 Cheque No. 365020 Ex. CW1/5c
8 Signed acknowledgement by accused Ex. CW1/6
9 Returning Memo for cheque no. 365021 Ex. CW1/7a
10 Returning Memo for cheque no. 365012 Ex. CW1/7b
11 Returning Memo for cheque no. 365020 Ex. CW1/7c
12 Legal notice, postal receipt and tracking report Ex. CW1/8; Ex.
CW1/9a & Ex.
CW1/9b
13 Whatsapp service Ex. CW1/10a &
Ex. CW1/10b
14 Reply to Legal Notice Ex. CW1/11
DECISION THEREON
10. The ingredients of an offence under Section-138 NI Act are as follows:
· First ingredient, cheque is issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt
or other liability.
· Second ingredient, on presentation, the cheque has been returned unpaid.
· Third ingredient, despite service of legal demand notice on the drawer of the
cheque, he has failed to make payment within a period of 15 days from the date
of receipt of such notice.
Applying the ingredients of the offence to the present case, this Court finds
that:
11. FIRSTLY, the cheques Ex. CW1/5a & Ex. CW1/5c which were admittedly
signed and issued by accused and are of amount of Rs. 2,03,354/- and Rs. 1,85,399/-
respectively, were presented by the complainant in his bank. As per Section-139 of
the NI Act it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque in
discharge of any debt or liability, unless contrary is proved. Thus, as per law it shall
be presumed that the cheque was issued by the Accused in favour of the Complainant
Page 4 of 6	SURBHI
SHARMA
Digitally
signed by
SURBHI
SHARMA
Date:
2025.10.18
16:46:03
+0530
-- 4 of 6 --
for the discharge of any debt or liability. However, the said presumption is a rebut-
table presumption and the onus is on the accused to rebut the same. Further, the stan-
dard of proof required required for rebutting the said presumption is “
preponderance
of probabilities”.
Thus, now what has to be seen from the facts of the case is whether or not the
Accused has been able to dispel the presumption under Section-139 of the NI Act.
11.1 In the present case, accused himself has admitted his liability towards the com-
plainant at the stage of framing of notice. He admitted that the cheques in question
were indeed signed by him and then issued to complainant towards due payment.
Furthermore, the complainant has also placed on record one written acknowledge-
ment (Ex. CW1/6) duly signed and given on behalf of accused wherein as well he has
admitted his outstanding liability and the factum of issuance of cheques in question.
Now, the execution of the said document, though admitted by accused, was stated to
be executed by him under coercion from the police officials and complainant. How-
ever, the said denial is at the age of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC
but accused did not lead any evidence in defence to support his contention.
However, at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused
stated that the cheques in question were given by him as security to complainant. Fur-
ther, it is also submitted by him that the same were handed over due to coercion by
the police officials and the complainant. But, accused refused to lead any defence evi-
dence on his behalf. Mere assertions are not enough and accused has to bring some
credible evidence in order to rebut the legal presumption so raised against him.
Accused has taken two completely contradictory stands at the stage of
framing of notice and his statement u/s 313 CrPC. But neither did he seek permission
to cross-examine complainant nor did he lead any defence evidence. Therefore, in
such situation, wherein the liability was admitted by accused at the stage of framing
of notice and he did not lead any defence evidence to the contrary, then it can be said
that the cheques in question were indeed issued in discharge of legally enforceable
debt or liability. Thus, the first ingredient of the offence stands fulfilled.
Page 5 of 6SURBHI
SHARMA
Digitally
signed by
SURBHI
SHARMA
Date:
2025.10.18
16:46:10
+0530
-- 5 of 6 --
12. SECONDLY, the cheques so issued was returned unpaid by the Bank with re-
marks “Funds Insufficient” vide Return Memos Ex.CW1/7a and Ex. CW1/7c. The
said return memo has not been disputed by accused and can be deemed to be admitted
by him. Thus, the second ingredient of the offence stands fulfilled.
13. THIRDLY, demand notice dated 24.07.2023 Ex. CW1/8 seeking repayment of
cheque amount was served upon the Accused. The receipt of demand notice has been
admitted by the accused. Further, there is no dispute to the fact that accused failed to
make payment within statutory time period of 15 days from the date of receipt of de-
mand notice. Thus, the third ingredient of the offence stands fulfilled.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the ingredients of the offence under
Section-138 NI Act stands proved and the accused has been unable to discharge the
onus of proof so placed upon him. Accordingly, the accused M/s Ramdev agency
through its proprietor Sh. BHAGIRATH RAM stands CONVICTED of offence un-
der/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(Surbhi Sharma)
JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-02/NW/ND
20.08.2025
Announced in open Court.
Note: This judgment contains 6 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Page 6 of 6
SURBHI
SHARMA
Digitally signed
by SURBHI
SHARMA
Date:
2025.10.18
16:46:19 +0530
-- 6 of 6 --