Delhi District Court
Shailesh Kumar vs Mahesh Baba on 27 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RISHABH TANWAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS/NI ACT-01/WEST/TIS
HAZARI COURT/DELHI
C.T. Cases no. 4036/2019
CNR No. DLWT020083452019
Sh. Shailesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Prasad,
R/o H.no. 462, Street no. 9, Surya Vihar Part-II,
Faridabad, Haryana. .........Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Mahesh Babu
S/o Sh. Baldev Prasad,
R/o H.no. 256, Street no. 9, Surya Vihar Part-II,
SEhatpur, Faridabad, Haryana. ............Accused
JUDGMENT
1. Date of institution of case : 31.05.2019
2. Date of reserving the judgment : 18.01.2025
3. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.01.2025
4. Offence complained or proved : 138 N.I. Act
5. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty"
6. Final Order : Acquittal/Not Guilty
7. Date of Final Order : 27.01.2025
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 1/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:06:41 +0530
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The present case has arisen out of a complaint filed under section 138
read with section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as N.I. Act) filed by one Shailesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Complainant’) for dishonour of cheque bearing number 016320 dated
05.04.2019 for Rs.4,25,000/- and cheque bearing number 018398 dated
06.04.2019 for Rs. 75,000/- each drawn on Axis Bank, Sector 37, Faridabad
Branch, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the cheques in question’) issued by one
Mahesh Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) in favor of the
complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused had taken a friendly loan of
Rs. 90,000/- from the complainant, in cash, in January 2018. The accused
had duly returned the same to the complainant and no documentation was
prepared for the same. Subsequently, the complainant alleges that the
accused again approached him in June 2018 for the friendly loan of Rs.
5,00,000/- required for business purposes and to return money to his lenders.
The complainant alleges that he had withdrawn the said amount in the
following breakup: Rs. 2,00,000/- on 09.08.2018, Rs. 30,000/- on
13.08.2019, Rs. 1,30,000/- on 10.10.2018 and Rs. 01,50,000/- on 30.10.2018
from the bank account of his wife Ranju Devi and the accused had promised
to return the said amount in 3 months.
3. The complainant further alleges that the accused issued the post dates
cheques in question when he failed to return the loan amount within time. As
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 2/17
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:06:47
+0530
per the complainant, one of the cheques was filled by the son of the accused
and the other cheque was filled by the accused’s relative. However, the
cheque was signed by the accused. These cheques came to be dishonored
upon presentation through the return memo dated 15.04.2019 issued by the
complainant’s bank with the remark ‘account closed’. The complainant
issued the legal demand notice dated 24.09.2019 under section 138(b) NI
Act. The present complaint came to be filed by the complainant when the
accused failed to pay the amount of the cheques despite receipt of the legal
demand notice.
4. The complainant examined himself in pre-summoning evidence as
CW-1 on 31.05.2019 and tendered his evidence on affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A).
He also placed reliance on the following documents: –
(a) The copies of the policy bond of the wife of the accused Ex.
CW-1/1 (Colly.)
(b) Account statement of the wife of the complainant namely Ms.
Ranju Devi Ex. CW-1/2 (Colly.)
(c) Ex. CW1/2 and Ex. CW-1/3 are the cheques in question.
(d) Ex. CW-1/4 is the return memo dated 15.04.2019.
(e) Ex. CW-1/5 is the legal notice dated 24.04.2019
(f) Ex. CW-1/6 is the postal receipt.
(g) Ex. CW-1/7 is the tracking report.
5. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, this Court took
cognizance of the offence under section 138 NI Act on the same day and
directed issuance of summons against accused. The accused appeared on
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 3/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:06:52 +0530
15.12.2020 when bailable warrants were issued against him, as he had failed
to appear despite service of summons upon him. The accused was granted
bail under section 436 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity) on furnishing bail bonds to the tune of
Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount and the defense of the
accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. was recorded, after serving upon him the
substance of accusation on 25.04.2022.
6. The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and disclosed his defense that he had
taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant in 2017 and repaid Rs.
90,000/- through Sahara insurance company policy bonds and remaining
amount in cash. He further stated that he had given two security cheques to
the complainant, of which one was signed, and the other cheque was not
signed by him. The accused denied receipt of legal notice by him.
7. This court had allowed the prayer made by the accused to cross-
examine the complainant under section 145(2) NI Act on 25.04.2022 and it
was deemed fit that the case be tried as a summons case. The complainant’s
evidence on affidavit (Ex. CW-1/1) was read as his examination in chief
under section 145(1) NI Act and he relied on the documents exhibited by
him at the time of pre-summoning evidence. CW-1 was cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he has brought his Income Tax Returns
(ITR) for the year 2018-2019 (Ex. CW-1/10). Thereafter the complainant
closed his evidence.
8. The Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 4/17
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:06:56
+0530
06.08.2024 wherein he stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 90,000 from the
complainant and had issued two security cheques to the complainant. He
further stated that he had signed on the cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000
and the other cheque was blank and unsigned. He further stated that he had
repaid Rs. 75,000 to the complainant by way of transfer of Sahara Insurance
Company Policy in the name of the complainant and paid the remaining
amount in cash. He further stated that he did not owe any amount to the
complainant and that his cheques have been misused.
9. The accused has not led any defense in the present case and
accordingly, the case was put up for final arguments.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
10. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of
decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first. It is well settled
position of law that to constitute an offence under S.138 N.I. Act, the
following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(1) That the cheque in question has been drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another
person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt
or liability.
(2) That the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months (now three months) from the date on which it is
drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 5/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:01
+0530
(3) That the cheque was returned dishonoured by the drawee bank for
want of sufficient funds or the same exceeded any arrangement with
the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque.
(4) That the complainant gave 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 demanding payment
of the cheque amount.
(5) Lastly that the accused failed to make payment to the payee (the
complainant), or the holder in due course, the cheque amount within
15 days of the receipt of the notice.
11. It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the
person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an
offence under Section 138 of the N I Act. The Act also raises two
presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque namely first, in Section
118(a) which says that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and, second, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder
of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Analysing all the
concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983′,
noted at para 23 Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin
Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State
of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v.
Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets,
(2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441]:
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 6/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:05
+0530
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the
Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge
of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption
and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The
standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on
evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials
submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only
from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by
reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box
in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to
support his defence.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
12. Sh. Anil Kumar Singh, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued
that the complainant has been able to prove all the pre-requisites of Section
138 NI Act against the accused and the accused has failed to rebut the
presumption u/s. 138 NI Act. Ld. counsel has prayed that the accused be
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 7/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:10
+0530
convicted of the offence u/s. 138 NI Act.
13. Per contra, Sh. Manbir Singh and Sh. Bir Singh, Ld. Counsels for the
accused has argued that the cheque in question was taken as security by the
complainant and that the complainant has failed to prove that the cheques in
question were issued for legally recoverable liability as the loan amount was
not shown in the income tax returns (I.T.R.). It was further argued that the
accused has never received any legal notice as the same was sent to the
wrong address and no certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (hereinafter referred to as “I.E.A.” for the sake of brevity) has been
filed by the complainant in support of the complaint and the tracking report.
It is also argued that the complainant has failed to prove his financial
capacity. Ld. counsel has prayed that the complainant has failed to prove its
case, and the accused has rebutted the presumption under section 139 NI Act
and has prayed that the accused be acquitted of the offence alleged against
him. Ld. Counsel as placed reliance upon the following cases: R L Varma &
Sons (Huf) vs P C Sharma on 1 July, 2019 (2019) 263 DLT 586, M/s. Ajeet
Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685, K. Bhaskaran vs
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 th September, 1999, AIR 1999
SUPREME COURT 3762, Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs The State Of Punjab,
2022CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2010 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar
vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
Points of determination number (A):
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 8/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:07:15 +0530
14. Whether the complainant has successfully proven the facts which
would raise the presumption u/s. 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act by proving
that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused?
15. It is settled law that once the signature upon the cheques in question
has been admitted by the accused, certain presumptions are drawn, which
result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the
presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act.
The provision 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.
16. The combined effect of these two provisions is a 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 expression
“shall”, which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions,
once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Hiten P. Dalal
vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16′.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets
(2009) 2 SCC 513′, while elaborating upon the interplay of section 118(a)
r/w 139 of the N I Act, has held that:
“14. Section 139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed,
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 9/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:19
+0530
unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
15. Applying the definition of the word “proved” in section 3 of
the Evidence Act to the provisions of sections 118 and 139 of the Act,
it becomes evident that in a trial under section 138 of the Act a
presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument
was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for
discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable
instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant
discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was
executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under section 118
and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The
presumption will live, exist and survive and 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. A
presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie
case for a party for whose benefit it exists.”
18. In the present case, the accused has admitted his signature on the
cheque (Ex. CW-1/4) and has disputed his signature on the cheque (Ex.
CW-1/3).
19. The accused has not led any defense to prove that the signature on the
cheque (Ex. CW-1/3) does not belong to him. It is an established principle
that a mere denial is no denial unless cogent evidence is brought on record
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 10/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:23
+0530
or the same is proved by coherent circumstantial evidence. The accused has
failed to pursue either of the said courses. Therefore, the defence of the
accused that the cheque (Ex. CW-1/3) does not bear his signature has
remained ‘not proved’.
20. However, the matter of fact remains that there was no admission of
signature on the cheque Ex. CW-1/3 by the accused. The complainant, too,
has failed to prove that the same bears the signature of the accused. No bank
witness has been examined, and no efforts were made by the complainant to
prove the signature of the accused.
21. This court however has ample powers under section 73 I.E.A. to
compare the disputed signature of the accused with the admitted and
undisputed signature of the accused present on record. It cannot be disputed
that the accused has signed upon the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. as well
as on his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. during the trial. A bare
comparison of the signature on the cheque with signatures of the accused on
the notice as well as on his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. does not
disclose any stark or noticeable difference. Minor deviations are bound to
appear. Moreover, the cheques in question have been dishonoured with the
remark “account closed” and not “drawer signature differs” vide return
memo (Ex. CW-1/5). Therefore, the signature of the drawer on the cheque
Ex. CW-1/3 appears to be that of the accused.
22. Therefore, the defence of accused that he did not sign the cheque Ex.
CW-1/3 is not tenable, and the presumption cannot be considered to have
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 11/17
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:07:29
+0530
been rebutted only on bald assertions without cogent proof. Once signatures
are admitted and shown to be that of the accused, the presumption under
section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act must be raised in favour of the complainant.
Points of determination number (B):
23. Whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence
or in another words, whether he had been able to prove that the cheques
were not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or any other liability?
24. It would be apposite to discuss first the preliminary defense taken by
the accused that he had not received the legal notice, and that the com-
plainant has sent the legal notice on the wrong address. In this regard, it
would be relevant to discuss the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammad & Anr AIR
2007 SC (SUPP) 1705″ wherein it was held that: ” 17. It is also to be borne
in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the
rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice be-
fore filing a complaint. 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 under Section 138 of the Act, make pay-
ment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made pay-
ment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of com-
plaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be re-
jected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons
from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 12/17
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:07:33
+0530
the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice
as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the con-
trary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.”
25. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the accused has not
paid the amount of the cheque in question within 15 days of his appearance
in this court and after knowing the case against him. Therefore, the accused
cannot now contend that he had not received the legal notice or there was no
proper service of the same upon him. Hence, this defense of the accused
does not hold any water and is liable to be dismissed
26. Now let us examine the main contention of the accused that the
cheques in question were not issued towards discharge of legally recoverable
liability. The accused has taken a defence that he had taken a loan of a
comparatively small amount from the complaint, and he had repaid the
same. He had further alleged that the cheques in question were given as
security and not towards discharge of an illegally recoverable existing
liability.
28. It is the case of the complainant that he had lent a loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused, which he had withdrawn from the bank
account of his wife. In his cross examination conducted by the accused, the
complainant had stated that his wife was a homemaker and did not have any
active source of income. The complaint also admitted that he used to operate
the said bank account for the purposes of his business. The first doubt that
arises in the mind of a reasonably prudent person is that if a person
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 13/17
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:07:37
+0530
approaches another person for a loan and the former happens to have the
requisite amount in his bank account, he will normally transfer the said
amount directly into the bank account of the borrower. It would not make
any sense that he would first take the pains of withdrawing the amount and
give the said amount to the borrower in cash. Transferring the amount
directly to the bank of the borrower would only help the lender to prove the
transfer of funds easily through his bank account statement. Whereas it
would be is very difficult to prove the cash transaction unless the
surrounding circumstances are proved or any eyewitnesses are examined.
29. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CRL.L.P. 559/2015 Sheela
Sharma Vs Mahendra Pal decided on 02.08.2016′ has observed that “30. In
cases where the complainant claims to have advanced a friendly loan in
cash, and where the transaction of loan is not evidenced by any other docu-
mentary or other reliable evidence, no doubt, the aspect whether the avail-
ability of funds in cash with the complainant/ lender, and its advancement as
loan to the accused have been reflected in the income tax returns of the com-
plainant/ lender, or not, become relevant. If, the availability of funds, and the
loan transaction itself is not so reflected, that factor is taken note of by the
Court as relevant to hold that the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of
the NI Act stands rebutted. However, these considerations would not be rele-
vant, where loan transaction itself is otherwise established, either through
documentary evidence – such as, a receipt or a loan agreement, or acknowl-
edgement executed by the accused, or by oral evidence of an independent
witness who is found to be credible. In the present case, the loan transaction,
though not recorded in an agreement, or a receipt or acknowledgement exe-
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 14/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:42
+0530
cuted by the accused, and though not reflected in the income-tax returns of
the complainant, is evidenced by the oral testimony of CW-2, who is an in-
dependent witness and highly credible.”
30. It was admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination by the
Ld. Counsel for the accused that though he filed his I.T.R. and also brought
the same on record (Ex. CW-1/10), he had not disclosed the loan transaction
in his balance sheet filed alongwith the I.T.R. No independent witnesses
have been examined by the complainant to prove the fact that the loan was
extended to the accused. It is an admitted position that no documentation or
loan agreement or receipt or acknowledgment had been executed between
the parties. When a person chooses to rely upon cash transaction sans any
tangible proof of the existence of the same, he must necessarily assume the
risk that if such alleged transaction falls apart, he would not be able to prove
it.
31. Moreover, the complainant has relied upon the account statement Ex.
CW-1/2 (Colly.) to prove the withdrawal of the amount. No evidence has
been led, and no witness has been examined by the complainant to show that
the amount so withdrawn was in fact handed over to the accused. With-
drawal entries only prove that the amount mentioned therein was removed
from the bank account, not necessarily given to the accused. The com-
plainant has admitted in his cross-examination that his wife’s bank was oper-
ated by him for business purposes. A bare perusal of the account statement
(Ex. CW-1/2) shows several credits entries of the amount from one S.K. En-
terprises, which admittedly was being run by the complainant. For example,
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 15/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:46
+0530
an entry dated 19.07.2018 shows cash deposit of Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs.
1,50,000/- funds transfer from S.K. Enterprises. Again on 25.10.2019, Rs.
1,50,000/- is shown as funds transferred from S.K. Enterprises. All these
transactions had occurred in between the transactions relied upon the com-
plainant. It cannot be conclusively gainsaid that the amount withdrawn vide
these entries was not used by the complainant for the purposes of his busi-
ness, instead of giving it to the accused as alleged by him. This seems fairly
possible from the perusal of the account statement and the testimony of the
complainant and raises a probable doubt on the story of the complainant.
32. Moreover, the complainant has alleged in his evidence on affidavit
(Ex. CW-1/A) that he had withdrawn Rs. 30,000/- from his wife’s bank ac-
count on 13.08.2018, whereas Ex. CW-1/2 shows that an amount of Rs.
80,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 13.08.2018. As a matter of
fact, there is not even a single withdrawal entry of Rs. 30,000/- in the ac-
count statement Ex. CW-1/2. This fact further belies the story of the com-
plainant.
33. Therefore, the accused has been able to raise a probable doubt on the
story of the complainant. The basic principle in criminal law is that the guilt
of the respondent/accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if
there is a slightest doubt about the commission of an offence then the benefit
must accrue to him. (Reliance is placed upon judgement of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in ‘Kulvinder Singh V. Gulam Moinuddin @ Kalu Bhai
Crl.A. 122 of 2018 dated 11.10.2022’)
CC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 16/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.01.27
15:07:52
+0530
34. Accordingly, the accused has been able to raise a probable defence
that the cheques in question were not issued in discharge of legally recover-
able liability. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to prove his
case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
35. Accordingly, the point of determination number B is decided in the af-
firmative.
CONCLUSION
36. Accordingly, this Court finds the accused Mahesh Babu S/o Sh.
Baldev Prasad ‘Not Guilty’ of the offence under Section 138 NI Act and
accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence.
37. This judgement contains 17 pages, and each page has been signed by
the undersigned as per rules.
38. Let the copy of digitally signed judgment be uploaded on the website
of Tis Hazari District Court as per rules.
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.01.27
15:08:06 +0530Announced in open Court (RISHABH TANWAR)
On 27th Day of January 2025 JMFC (NI ACT-01)/WEST/DELHICC No. 4036/2019 Shailesh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Babu pg. no. 17/17
