[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Jai Maa Barahi Co Operative Urban Thrift … vs Neelam Gupta on 7 May, 2025
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
1/15
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, (NI ACT), DIGITAL
COURT-01, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Ashima Lakhanpall, DJS
DLSH020104632021
M/s Jai Maa Barahi Cooperative(U) Thrift & Credit Society
Block No.6, House No. 136
Khichri Pur, Delhi-110091
(Through its Authorised Representative)
.... Complainant
VS.
Neelam Gupta
w/o Suresh Kumar Gupta
R/o H. No. A/5, First Floor, Gali No. 2, Block-A,
Near Ram Mandir, West Vinod Nagar, East Delhi. .... Accused
Jai Maa Barahi Cooperative(U)
1. Name of Complainant :
Thrift & Credit Society
2. Name of Accused : Neelam Gupta
Section 138, Negotiable
3. Offence complained of or proved :
Instruments Act, 1881
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of Filing : 24.11.2021
6. Date of Reserving Order : 17.04.2025
7. Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
Argued by :- Sh. Amit Yadav, Ld. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Harshit Chopra, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused
(hereinafter referred to as Ld. LAC for the accused)
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:37:13 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
2/15
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX (Version of the complainant)
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant Jai Maa Barahi
Cooperative(U) Thrift & Credit Society against the accused Neelam Gupta under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI
Act"). The substance of allegations of the complainant is that the complainant is a
registered society the accused had taken loan for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- @
1.25% per month from the society, on assurance that she will return loan amount in
installment of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is further mentioned in the complaint that
accused failed to pay the installments of loan amount and interest and the total
amount due upon accused including interest is Rs. 71,409/-.
2. It is further mentioned in the complaint that in discharge of her legal
liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 950117 for Rs. 71,409/- dated
14.09.2021, drawn on State Bank of India, Kalyanpuri, Delhi (hereinafter cheque
referred to as "cheque in question/cheque") in favour of complainant. The said
cheque, when presented with the banker, was returned unpaid vide returning
memo, dated 15.09.2021, with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The complainant
then issued demand notice through Speed Post. Even after the receipt of the
demand notice, the accused failed to pay the amount of cheques within the
stipulated period and hence, the present complaint has been filed.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE
3. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, she was summoned to
face trial vide order dated 15.02.2022.
4. After her appearance, notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 Digitally signed
by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date: 2025.05.07
17:37:25 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
3/15
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") was served upon her
on 09.06.2023. In reply to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. She stated that she is signatory to the cheque but does not have
the legal liability towards the complainant of the alleged amount. She further stated
as under:
"I issued the cheque in question as a security purpose for an amount
of Rs. 50,000/- at the rate of interest 18% at the time of grant loan.
Till date I have paid approx. Rs. 30,000/-. I tried contacting the
society to pay the rest amount but they have asked for more than Rs.
1 lac for settlement. The cheque in question was taken by me as a
security at the time of grant of loan".
5. The complainant has led the following oral and documentary evidence
against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE
CW-1 : Hriday Narayan (AR of the complainant)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. CW1/1 : Copy of resolution
Ex.CW1/2 : Copy of loan bond
Ex.CW1/3 : Cheque bearing no. 950117
Ex.CW1/4 : Cheque return memo dated 15.09.2021
Ex.CW1/5 : Legal demand notice dated 01.10.2021
Ex.CW1/6 : Postal receipt
6. The application of the accused to cross-examine the complainant was
allowed and the complainant was cross-examined, extensively, by the Ld. LAC for
the accused on 03.05.2024. The complainant closed its evidence on the same date.
7. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of the
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 Digitally signed
by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date: 2025.05.07
17:37:41 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
4/15
accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused
accepted the dishonour of cheques in question. Further, she stated, as under:
"The complainant has filed correct evidence affidavit Ex.
CW-1/A. I cannot comment upon Board Resolution Ex.
CW-1/1. Ex. CW-1/2 is correct. I have issued the cheque in
question Ex. CW-1/3 for security purposes. The cheque return
memo Ex. CW-1/4 is correct. I have not received the legal
demand notice Ex. CW-1/5. I cannot comment upon postal
receipts Ex. CW-1/6. I had approached the complainant upon
the dishonour of the cheque and had sought time to pay the
amount but the complainant society was asking for an
exhorbant amount which I could not pay."
8. Thereafter, vide separate statement of accused, Defence Evidence was
closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE
PARTIES
9. Ld. counsel for the complainant while re-iterating the contents of the
complaint has argued that all the requirements of Section 138 N.I. Act have been
fulfilled by the complainant in the present case. He has argued that the cheque in
question was issued by the accused towards a legally enforceable liability of the
accused. He has further argued that when the cheque was presented with the bank
for encashment, the same was dishonored and thereafter, legal notice was sent to
the accused to make the payment, but no payment was made by the accused
within the stipulated period of 15 days. He has further drawn the attention of the
court to the reply to notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. and argued that the accused has
admitted the issuance of cheques as well as her signatures on the cheque in
question. He has further submitted that all the ingredients of section 138 NI Act
have been duly satisfied and presumption u/s 139 NI Act be drawn in favour of
the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:37:56 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
5/15
accused has failed to raise any probable defence to disprove the case of
complainant. Therefore, accused be convicted for the offence u/s 138 NI Act.
10. Per contra, Ld. LAC for the accused has addressed detail arguments. He has
argued that the complainant has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt. He has argued that the accused has no legal liability of the cheque amount
in question and a blank signed cheque was given as security to the complainant
society at the time of taking loan. Ld. LAC for the accused has further drawn the
attention of the court to the discrepancies in the documents filed by the
complainant society and challenged the loan transaction itself. He has further
highlighted the contradictions in the testimony of the AR of the complainant in
his cross-examination and argued that the AR has failed to pass the test of cross-
examination and prove the complainant's case. He has further argued that the
registration documents of the society and challenged the maintainability of
complaint. He has finally submitted that the accused has proved her defence and
prayed that she be acquitted in the present case.
11. Both the parties have also filed their written arguments.
DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to
discuss the legal standards to be met by both sides. The complainant has to prove
the ingredients of the offence under section 138 NI Act, which are as under:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained
by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a
period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any
legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 Digitally signed
by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date: 2025.05.07
17:38:08 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
6/15
insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the
amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that
bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or
holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer
within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from
the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of
money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
13. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act
if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively.
Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be
fulfilled.
14. The proof of first and third ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has
proved the original cheque, Ex. CW1/3 which the accused has not disputed as
being drawn on her account. It is not disputed that the cheque in question was
presented within the validity period and the same was returned unpaid vide return
memo, Ex. CW1/4 due to the reason, "funds insufficient". Further, the accused has
admitted the return memo in her statement of admissions and denials and
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. As such, the first and third ingredient of the
offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
15. With regard to the fourth and fifth ingredient, the complainant has proved on
record legal notice Ex. CW1/5, postal receipt Ex. CW1/6 as per which the legal
notice was sent on 12.10.2021. Thus, the legal notice was duly sent by the counsel
for the complainant within 30 days from dishonour memo which is dated
15.09.2021. Although the receipt of legal notice is not accepted by the accused in
her Plea of defence recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C., however, the accused has
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:38:16 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
7/15
admitted the correctness of her address. Thus, the legal notice was sent on the
correct address of the accused. Considering these facts, the court draws a
presumption under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the legal
notice was duly sent on the correct address of the accused in the general course of
business and the same was delivered upon the accused. The fact that the payment
was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed.
Therefore, the fourth and the fifth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty
Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), has held as under:
"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can,
within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the
complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit
to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons
(by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and therefore, the
complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of
receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint
u/s. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service
of notice as required u/s. 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary
u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act"
16. Now, it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved or not.
The accused has admitted being a signatory to the cheque in question in reply to
notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. Under the NI Act, once the accused admits the
signatures on the cheque, certain presumptions are drawn in favour of the
complainant, which shift the onus of proof on the accused. The first presumption is
mentioned under Section 118(a) of the NI Act which lays down the presumption
that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. The second
presumption is contained under Section 139 of NI Act which lays down the
presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or
part, of any debt or other liability. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 Digitally signed
by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date: 2025.05.07
17:38:29 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
8/15
presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused
for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the word "shall",
which makes raising the presumption imperative for the court, once the
foundational facts required to raise the presumption are proved. This position of
law is reflected in judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalal vs.
Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16. Thus, the said presumptions are raised
in favour of the complainant.
17. Pertinently, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that once the
presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a
probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of
proof have been summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs.
Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"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 him 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 the witness box in
support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a
persuasive burden."
18. In view of the above principles, a reverse onus is cast upon the accused, who
has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of
probabilities to prove that there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability.
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:38:54 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
9/15
19. It is pertinent to evaluate and appreciate the following in order to assess the
"probable defence", if any, of the accused:
a. The plea of defence of accused recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and statement of
accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
b. Evidence affidavit and cross-examination of the complainant (CW-1).
In the present case, the contentions raised by the Ld. LAC for the accused to rebut
the presumption are discussed below.
20. It is the version of the accused in her reply to legal notice under section 251
Cr.P.C. that the accused had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant
society and issued a blank signed cheque as security at the time of issuance of loan.
She has further stated that she has already paid Rs. 30,000/- and approached the
society for paying the remaining amount, however, the complainant society
demanded more than 1 lac for settlement.
21. Ld. LAC for the accused has raised the defence that the accused does not
have the legal liability of the cheque amount in question and the complainant
society has misused the blank signed security cheque of the accused given at the
time of taking loan. He has vehemently, argued that the complainant society has
failed to prove, through oral or documentary evidence, as to how it has arrived at
the amount mentioned on the cheque in question i.e. the alleged legal liability. He
has further highlighted various contradictions in the cross-examination of the AR
in support of the defence of the accused.
22. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the legal
liability of the complainant is duly proved and he has mentioned the calculation of
the alleged legal liability of the accused in his written submissions.
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:39:06 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
10/15
23. This court has carefully analysed the evidence affidavit filed by the AR of
complainant CW-1 and his testimony in cross-examination in the light of the
arguments addressed by the Ld. LAC for the accused. The court has found several
inconsistencies in the case of the complainant society which have been discussed
hereinafter.
24. One of the major deficiency in the case of the complainant society is the
complete absence of any computation or calculation substantiating the alleged
outstanding liability of Rs. 71,407/-. The complainant has not placed on record
any documentary evidence such as loan account statement of the accused, her
repayment history, final computation chart or any settlement document to
substantiate the alleged outstanding liability of Rs. 71,407/-, either along with the
complaint or at the stage of evidence. Further, the AR of the complainant has
explicitly stated in the cross-examination that he cannot tell that how many
instalments have already been paid by the accused and has admitted that no
calculation or computation of the amount claimed has been filed on record.
25. Pertinently, in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the existence of
a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of presentation of the cheque is a
foundational requirement. It is the burden of the complainant to establish with
clarity the origin, extent, and calculation of the alleged liability. The failure of the
complainant to produce the loan account statement of the accused and further
failure to state the number of installments already paid by the accused in cross-
examination strikes at the root of the complainant's case. Though, Ld. Counsel for
the complainant has filed a written submissions incorporating a detailed calculation
of the alleged outstanding amount, totaling Rs. 71,409/-, which includes principal,
interest, penal charges, and deferment charges. However, the same has no
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:39:16 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
11/15
evidentiary value in the absence of it being proved during trial through oral or
documentary evidence. Further, for the sake of argument, even if the said
calculation is considered, it is apparent that the complainant has arrived at the
alleged liability by adding deferment charges of Rs. 3400/-. It is relevant to note
that deferment charges are neither mentioned in the loan agreement/bond placed on
record nor any society rules were produced during evidence to justify these
charges. Thus, the calculation appears to be an afterthought, introduced only
during the final arguments to artificially justify the cheque amount.
Consequentially, the amount of Rs. 71,407/- is arbitrary and unsubstantiated,
raising serious doubt in the mind of the court as to whether this amount is a legally
recoverable debt.
26. Further, the accused has claimed that the cheque in question was a blank,
signed security cheque handed over at the time of taking a loan, whereas, it is the
case of the complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused in August 2021
to discharge outstanding dues. Significantly, during cross-examination, the AR of
the complainant has admitted that the accused had approached the society
expressing willingness to settle the matter and pay her actual dues. However, the
society demanded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- for settlement. This admission by the
AR directly supports the accused's version, as stated in her reply under Section 251
Cr.P.C., that she had approached the society to clear her genuine dues but was
asked to pay more than one lakh rupees. This also casts doubt on the complainant's
claim that the cheque was issued later in August 2021 towards a settled liability,
since no settlement was reached at the time the accused expressed willingness to
pay. Moreover, the AR admitted that no document regarding the alleged loan was
ever provided to the accused. While he claimed that a notice of dues was sent, no
such document has been placed on record. The absence of documentation
CC NI ACT 2125/2021
Digitally signed
by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date: 2025.05.07
17:39:22 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
12/15
undermines the complainant's assertion that the accused voluntarily issued the
cheque for a specific amount towards an admitted liability. In the court's
considered opinion, the complainant has failed to explain how the accused could
have issued the cheque for the stated amount without any supporting
documentation. These circumstances strengthen the accused's defence that the
cheque was originally issued as a blank security cheque and may have been
subsequently filled in without her consent. Furthermore, even the law on security
cheque cannot come to the rescue of the complainant in the present case as the
complainant has failed to establish the existence of alleged legal liability of the
accused on the date of presentation of cheque in view of the discussion in
preceding paragraphs.
27. Further, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused has
herself admitted the correctness of the evidence affidavit (Ex. CW1/1) during her
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and therefore, she is liable to be convicted.
However, Ld. LAC for the accused has contended that the accused is an illiterate
woman who could not understand the legal implication of such an admission. From
perusal of the accused's reply to notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. and her other
answers in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the accused has
consistently stated that the cheque in question was issued as security and was
subsequently misused by the complainant. This position has been reaffirmed
through elaborate cross-examination conducted on similar lines by the Ld. LAC for
the accused. Therefore, accused's answer to a single question cannot be read in
isolation but must be interpreted in the context of her overall defence. On a holistic
reading of the defence of the accused, it can be inferred that she has only admitted
the advancement of loan but not the alleged legal liability.
Digitally signed
by ASHIMA
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:39:30 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
13/15
28. Further, it is noteworthy that Ld. LAC for the accused has pointed out
multiple loopholes in the testimony of the AR of the complainant with regard to
the mode and manner of execution of loan documents, which questions the
advancement of loan itself. He has also submitted that the registration documents
of the society have not been placed on record by the complainant while challenging
the maintainability of complaint itself. However, it must be noted that the accused,
in her reply to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., has admitted to having taken a
loan from the complainant society. Even her answer admitting Ex. CW1/1 can
reasonably be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the fact that the loan
transaction took place. These admissions are sufficient to dispense with the
complainant's burden of proving the advancement of a loan and the registration
status of the society. That said, the admission of Ex. CW1/1 does not extend to
acknowledging the alleged liability under the cheque. Such a conclusion also
cannot be drawn particularly when the complainant society has itself failed to
substantiate the existence and extent of the alleged liability of the accused through
reliable evidence as discussed hereinbefore.
29. Further, Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that AR of the complainant
does not have complete knowledge of the transaction and is not duly authorized. In
support of the said defence, Ld. LAC for the accused has drawn the attention of the
court to the cross-examination of the AR of the complainant and pointed out
discrepancies in his statement while arguing that the AR has failed the test of
cross-examination. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for the complainant company has argued
that the AR has stood the test of cross-examination and is a competent witness.
30. The court has carefully perused the cross-examination of the AR of the
complainant and has found the following inconsistencies in his statement:
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
LAKHANPALL
ASHIMA
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:39:37 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
14/15
a. The AR has contradicted himself about whether he was present during
filling of the loan form. The witness first states that form was not filled in
his presence, then states that 2 photographs of the accused were taken while
filing the form. Thereafter, when he is shown the form, he admits that no
photograph has been pasted and contradicts himself by saying the photo was
not pasted because the accused did not have one at the time. When the court
points out the inconsistency, he gives a vague and evasive answer: "Nahi thi
to nahi lagayi, hoti to laga dete."
b. The witness admits, "I do not know how much monthly installments have
been paid by the accused..." and states that the record is already on the
judicial file. He has also stated that the registration documents are on record,
whereas, at another point, he admits that these documents have not been
filed by him along with the complaint.
c. The AR has further shown ignorance with respect to the fact whether the
delivery report has been placed on record or not.
d. At one point, the AR has stated that Ex. CW1/1 is an old resolution and he is
not authorized to depose. At the another point, he has stated that it is wrong
to suggest that the board of resolution on record is invalid.
31. Thus, during cross-examination, AR's statements, revolving around the loan
transaction, including the interest and repayment as well as with regard to his
authority, are found to be discrepant and suspicious. Further, he has referred to
judicial records, vaguely, without personally verifying or affirming any details.
While the court does not hold that AR is an incompetent witness as he has been
forthcoming in a few aspects, however, the cumulative effect of these
discrepancies is that it erodes confidence in his testimony. Ultimately, AR's failure
to withstand rigorous cross-examination casts substantial doubt on his credibility,
Digitally signed
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 by ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date:
2025.05.07
17:39:46 +0530
Jai Maa Barahi Co-operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society through AR vs. Neelam Gupta
15/15
rendering his testimony unreliable. It also raises serious doubts about the veracity
of AR's claims with regard to existence of a legally enforceable debt.
32. In light of the above discussion, the accused has been successful in proving
her defence of non-existence of alleged legal liability at the date of issuance of
cheque and misuse of her blank signed security cheque by the complainant society,
on preponderance of probabilities and rebut the presumption in favour of the
complainant. The complainant has failed to prove the second essential of Section
138 NI Act i.e. the existence of a legally enforceable debt in its favour.
DECISION
33. Thus, this court holds that the complainant has failed to prove his case
beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused has been successful in
raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities and creating a
reasonable doubt in the case put forth by the complainant.
34. Accordingly, the accused Neelam Gupta w/o Suresh Kumar Gupta is hereby
acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act,1881. Before parting, the Court appreciates the diligent preparation
and dedication demonstrated by Ld. LAC for the accused, which is evident from
the record.
ORDER:
– ACQUITTED.
Pronounced in open court on 07.05.2025.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded as per rules.
(Ashima Lakhanpall)
JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-01, Shahdara,
KKD, New Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 15 pages and each page has been signed by the presiding officer.
CC NI ACT 2125/2021 Digitally signed by
ASHIMA
ASHIMA LAKHANPALL
LAKHANPALL Date: 2025.05.07
17:40:00 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link