Delhi District Court
Manoj vs Pramod Kumar Choudhary on 13 June, 2025
In The Court of Sh. Divyam Lila, Municipal Magistrate, East, Delhi CC NI ACT/1634/2018 CNR no. DLET020026012018 Date of Filing: 12-04-2018 Date of Registration : 13-04-2018 Date of Judgement: 13-06-2025 ________________________________________________________________ (Complainant): Mr. Manoj S/o Sh. Pralad Singh, R/o 1221, Sector 9, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P., VERSUS (Accused) Mr. Pramod Kumar Choudhary, S/o Sh. Surender Kumar Choudhary, R/o 9/72, Aklavya Vihar, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. ________________________________________________________________ Advocate appearing for the complainant: Sh. Mayank Joshi. Advocate appearing for the accused: Sh. Iftekhar Mohd. Offence punishable under: 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Final Order: Acquittal ________________________________________________________________ -:Index of Judgment:- 1.
Introduction:-…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-……………………………………………………………………… 2
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused………………………..2
4. Issues for Determination:……………………………………………………………………. 3
5. Evidence on Record……………………………………………………………………………. 4
6. Legal Position:…………………………………………………………………………………….5
7. Arguments of the parties:…………………………………………………………………….7
8. Analysis and Findings:……………………………………………………………………….. 9
10. Conclusion and Reason for decision:……………………………………………….. 17
11. Order:……………………………………………………………………………………………..17
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
-:Judgement:-
1. Introduction:-
a. This judgment adjudicates a complaint filed under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as
“NI Act“) by the complainant against the accused for the alleged
dishonour of a cheque in the case based on the friendly/ trust based.
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-
a. This is a complaint filed by Mr. Manoj, against the accused, Mr.
Pramod Kumar Choudhary alleging that the accused, in discharge
of a friendly loan of Rs. 5,40,734/-, issued the cheque in question at
his office in the presence of the complainant’s brother, Ravi Kumar.
No written agreement was executed for the loan.
b. The present case pertains to cheque bearing No. 890524 dated
05-02-2018 for Rs. 5,40,734/- drawn on Corporation Bank,
Vasundhara Branch, Ghaziabad. (hereinafter referred as cheque in
question) The cheque was dishonored on 09-02-2018 due to
“Funds Insufficient” (Return Code-20). Despite a legal notice dated
05-03-2018 demanding payment within 15 days, committing an
offence under Section 138.
c. Hence, the cognizance in the present matter was taken, and the
accused was summoned for the purpose of trial.
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused
a. The accused was served notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he
pleaded “not guilty”.
b. The accused admitted that the cheque was duly signed, and
pertained to the account maintained by the complainant. Accused
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 2/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
also admitted that the particulars on the cheque was also filled by
him.
c. The accused denies issuing the cheque to the complainant, claiming
it was stolen or misplaced, and asserts no debt or liability exists.
The accused claimed that he knew the complainant only through
the brother of the complainant. The brother of the complainant ran
the gym in his neighbourhood. He further claimed that the cheques
in question were misplaced/ stolen from his office and that the
cheque was kept in a filled condition in his office as he had to
make advance payment for booking of bricks to another manoj. He
further stated that he had filed the complaint after he came to know
about the dishonour of the cheque in his bank. He also claimed that
he was under the impression that the cheque in question was also in
possession of Sh. Rajender Rana and he could not tell how his
cheque came in possession of his cheque.
4. Issues for Determination:
a. The cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or
liability.?
b. The cheque was presented within the period of validity of three
months?.
c. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.?
d. A legal notice was duly served.?
e. The accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period.
f. The accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption
under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.?
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 3/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
5. Evidence on Record
a. Complainant’s Evidence: The complainant testified that the
accused issued the cheque (Ex. CW1/1) to repay a friendly loan of
Rs. 5,40,734/- advanced at the accused’s office in the presence of
his brother. Further complainant reiterated the contents of the
complaint. In the cross-examination: The complainant admitted the
loan was not documented and not shown in his ITR. He could not
recall the exact date of the loan but stated it was advanced 1-1.5
years before the cheque was issued. He denied knowledge of the
accused’s police complaint (Mark DX1) about cheque
misplacement and maintained that the cheque was handed over by
the accused. He clarified that his brother’s case in Ghaziabad Court
pertains to a separate transaction and denied participation in any
committee with the accused.
b. Statement of accused : Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281
Cr.P.C; the accused The accused denied taking any loan or having a
transactional relationship with the complainant. He reiterated that
three cheque books, including signed blank cheques, were
misplaced, and a police complaint was filed on 16-12-2017 (Mark
DX1). He admitted receiving and replying to the legal notices
c. Defence Evidence: The accused testified that two cheque books
were stolen, including signed blank cheques, and a complaint was
lodged at P.S. Indirapuram (Mark DX1, objected to for lack of
Section 65B IEA certificate). He claimed no transactional
relationship with the complainant and reiterated the cheque was
misplaced while traveling on 12-12-2017. In cross-examination, he
admitted carrying the cheque book while traveling and filing the
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 4/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
police complaint after police instructions, as they refused to
register an FIR.
6. Legal Position:
a. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the following essential elements
must be satisfied as per the judgement in Kusum Ingots & Alloys
Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 954 ,both
in the complaint and the evidence presented by the complainant:
i. Drawing of the Cheque: The accused must have drawn a
cheque on an account maintained by them, for the payment
of a legally enforceable debt or liability to another person.
ii. Timely Presentation: The cheque must be presented to the
bank for payment within three months from the date on
which it was drawn, or within the period of its validity,
whichever is earlier.
iii. Dishonour of the Cheque: The cheque must be dishonoured
by the bank due to either insufficient funds in the account or
because the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the
bank.
iv. Notice of Demand: The payee or holder of the cheque must
issue a written demand for payment to the drawer, within 30
days of receiving information from the bank regarding the
dishonour.
v. Failure to Pay: The drawer must fail to make payment within
15 days of receiving the notice of demand.
b. Additionally, the provisions of Sections 139 and 118 of the Act
further strengthen the case for the complainant. Section 139 creates
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 5/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, mandating that
the court shall presume, unless proven otherwise, that the cheque
was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability. Section
118, on the other hand, provides that there is a presumption that
every negotiable instrument, including a cheque, was made for
consideration, and that it was transferred for consideration.
c. In the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418;,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that once the execution
of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 imposes a rebuttable
presumption in favour of the complainant, establishing that the
cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The
presumption is rebuttable and the accused has the opportunity to
raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting this
presumption is based on the preponderance of probabilities.
d. The court further held that it is not mandatory for the accused to
enter the witness box to prove their defence. They may rely on the
evidence presented by the complainant or any other available
materials. The onus to rebut the presumption lies on the accused,
but it is important to note that this is an evidentiary burden, not a
persuasive one.
e. Thus, Section 138 operates on the principle of reverse onus of
proof: once the complainant proves the essential elements of
dishonour, the burden shifts to the accused to raise a plausible
defence. The presumption of guilt is strong, but not irrebuttable,
and the accused is entitled to challenge it through a preponderance
of evidence.
f. In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is to be
examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of
preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 6/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
presumption which has been raised against him and in favour of the
complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the
complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the
accused again on the complainant. As held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets
(2009) 2 SCC 513, the accused can either prove the non−existence
of the consideration and debt by direct evidence or by bringing on
record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which,
the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt either
did not exist or their non−existence was so probable that a prudent
man may act upon the plea that they did not exist. If the Court
comes to the conclusion that the accused has not been able to rebut
the presumption raised against him by failing to bring on record
direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case
of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his
favour.
7. Arguments of the parties:
a. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant : The learned
counsel for the complainant submitted that the case is squarely
covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, and the accused is liable for the dishonour of the cheque. The
key arguments advanced by the counsel urged the court to convict
the accused, are as follows:
i. The cheque was issued by the accused to discharge a legally
enforceable debt (friendly loan), and the statutory
presumption under Section 139 NI Act applies, obligating
the accused to rebut it.
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 7/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiii. The accused’s admission of signing and filling the cheque
confirms its issuance, and his defense of theft or
misplacement is an afterthought, unsupported by credible
evidence.
iii. The prior dishonored cheque to the complainant’s brother
(Ex. CW1/7) establishes a pattern of the accused issuing
cheques and denying liability with a fabricated theft defense,
undermining his credibility.
iv. The complainant’s testimony, supported by documentary
evidence (cheque, return memo, legal notices), satisfies all
ingredients of Section 138 NI Act (issuance, dishonor,
notice, non-payment), warranting conviction.
v. The lack of a written loan agreement or ITR disclosure is
immaterial, as oral agreements are valid under the NI Act,
and the accused has failed to disprove the debt.
b. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the Accused : The learned counsel
for the accused vehemently argued that the complainant has failed
to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the case is
based on a fabricated narrative to extort money. The key arguments
advanced by the counsel, while praying for the acquittal of the
accused, are as follows:
i. No legally enforceable debt exists, as the complainant failed
to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., loan agreement,
bank transfer) or corroborate the loan with witnesses, such as
his brother.
ii. The cheque was stolen or misplaced, as evidenced by the
police complaint dated 16-12-2017 (Mark DX1), and was
not issued to the complainant. It was filled for a brickCC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 8/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhibooking transaction with another Manoj and possibly
misused by Rajender Rana.
iii. The complainant’s testimony is vague (e.g., no loan date, no
ITR disclosure), and his failure to examine his brother raises
an adverse inference about the loan’s existence.
iv. The prior cheque to the complainant’s brother supports the
accused’s defense, as he consistently claimed cheque
misplacement in that case, corroborated by the same police
complaint.
v. The accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139
NI Act by establishing a probable defense of cheque misuse,
entitling him to acquittal.
8. Analysis and Findings:
a. Issue 1 – Issuance of Cheque: This ingredient pertains to the
issuance of the cheque in question itself. The Accused, in his notice
of accusation has stated that his signature was present on the
cheque in question. The plea of the accused that the date of the
cheque in question was not filled by him is of no help; as the
signature of the accused on the cheque is not disputed. Reliance
can be placed, at this juncture, wherein Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Anr. (2008) 102DRJ147, held:
“Section 20 NI Act talks of “inchoate stamped instruments” and
states that if a person signs and delivers a paper stamped in
accordance with the law and “either wholly blank or have written
thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument” such person thereby
gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof “to make or
complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for
any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount
covered by the stamp.” “A collective reading of the above
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 9/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiprovisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is
possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed
by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the
said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and
presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the
NI Act which defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink
pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with
the signature thereon as constituting a ‘material alteration’ for the
pur- poses of Section 87 NI Act. What is essential is that the
cheque must have been signed by the drawer.” Further, in Bir
singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 it was held that:-“It
is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person
other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If
the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138
would be attracted.” Hence, In the present case, Prima facie the
ingredient that the cheque was issued to the complainant has been
satisfied as the accused tacitly admitted her signature on the cheque
and the account of society. Having admitted the basic ingredient,
the presumption is drawn against the accused and now the accused
would have to prove that the cheque in question was not issued by
him for discharge of the liability; by way of rebuttal of the
presumption drawn against him. Whether the accused was able to
successfully rebut the adverse presumption is dealt in detail in the
issue no. 6; However, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
complainant and the presumption is drawn against the accused.
b. Issue 2 – Presentation within Validity: The essential requirement
of the offence under section 138 NI act is that the cheque has to be
presented within three months of the date of the cheque. ThisCC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 10/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiingredient stands satisfied on a bare perusal of the cheque in
question and the return memo being presented within the period of
validity. The cheque is also not dishonoured with the remark
“instrument stale”; as the cheque has been dishonoured with a
return memo noting the reason for return as “Funds Insufficient”.
The defence has led no evidence to controvert the same and hence,
this ingredient stands fulfilled as against the accused. Hence, this
issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque
has been proved to be dishonoured within the period of validity.
c. Issue 3 – Dishonour of Cheque: The essential requirement of the
offence under section 138 NI act is that the cheque has to be
dishonoured; and the cheque in question must not have been
encashed upon subsequent presentation. The bank return memo
records state that the cheque in question has been returned
dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The defence has
led no evidence to controvert the same and hence, this ingredient
also stands satisfied as against the Accused. Hence, this issue is
also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been
proved to be dishonoured.
d. Issue 4 – Legal Notice: The essential requirement of the offence
under section 138 NI act is that notice on the accused demanding
the amount of cheque shall be issued by the complainant. Service
of the legal notice is the legal fiction which constitutes the major
ingredient of the offence u/s-138 NI Act. The objective of serving
legal demand notice to the Accused before filing the case is to
allow the accused to make the payment. As regards the service of
legal demand notice, the Complainant has sent the same to the
Accused. That the Accused has in his notice of accusation u/s 251
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 11/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
Cr.P.C accepted receiving the legal demand notice and also in the
statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Sec-281 Cr.P.C. The
accused also stated that he had filed the reply to the said legal
notice.
e. Issue 5 – Non-Payment within 15 Days: The essential
requirement of the offence under section 138 NI act is that upon
issuance of the legal notice, the complainant must not have paid the
whole of the cheque amount. In the present case, after the issue no.
4 is against the accused, the case of the accused is that he does not
have any liability towards the complainant in form of cheque
amount and his cheque was misused. Hence, it is an admitted
position that no payment for the cheque in question was made and
thus this ingredient of non-payment within 15 days also stands
satisfied. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the
complainant and the cheque has been proved to be not paid by the
accused despite service of notice.
9. Issue 6 : Defence of the Accused and Rebuttal of Presumption: The
accused had sought to bring on record the defence that the accused had no
relationship with the complainant, no transaction was committed, the
cheques were misused. In the present case, the accused had made
following attempts towards rebuttal of the evidence against him; and with
the following observations, it is held that the issue no. 6 is decided
against the complainant and in favour of the accused:-
a. Failure to Establish a Legally Enforceable Debt: Section 138 of
the NI Act requires that the cheque in question be issued to
discharge, in whole or in part, a legally enforceable debt or
liability. The burden initially lies on the complainant to establishCC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 12/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhithe existence of such a debt, which is then supported by the
statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act. However, the
complainant’s evidence in this case is insufficient to prove the
existence of a legally enforceable debt for the following reasons:
i. Lack of Documentary Evidence for the Loan: The
complainant alleges that the cheque in question was issued to
repay a friendly loan advanced at the accused’s office.
However, he admitted during cross-examination that the loan
was undocumented, interest-free, and not declared in his
Income Tax Returns (ITRs). The absence of any written
agreement, receipt, or financial record (e.g., bank transfer
details) to substantiate the loan transaction raises significant
doubt about its existence.
ii. Vague and Inconsistent Testimony: The complainant’s
testimony is vague regarding critical details of the alleged
loan. He could not recall the exact date of the loan, stating
only that it was advanced 1-1.5 years before the cheque was
issued. This lack of specificity undermines the credibility of
the transaction, as a lender advancing a substantial sum of
Rs. 5,40,734/- would reasonably remember key details.
Additionally, the complainant’s claim that the cheque was
issued after “persistent demands” lacks corroboration, as no
evidence of prior communications (e.g., messages, calls, or
notices) was produced. The Supreme Court in John K.
Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham, (2011) 10 SCC 94,
emphasized that vague and uncorroborated assertions about a
debt weaken the complainant’s case.
iii. Non-Production of Key Witness: The complainant stated that
the loan was advanced in the presence of his brother, Ravi
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 13/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, DelhiKumar, who was allegedly present at the accused’s office.
However, the complainant failed to produce his brother as a
witness to corroborate this critical fact. The non-production
of a material witness, without explanation, raises an adverse
inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (IEA), as held in Vijay v. Laxman, (2013) 3 SCC 86.
The absence of the brother’s testimony leaves the
complainant’s claim reliant solely on his self-serving
statement, which is insufficient to establish a legally
enforceable debt.
iv. Non-Disclosure in ITRs: The complainant admitted that the
loan was not declared in his ITRs, despite claiming to have
filed returns before COVID. Advancing a significant sum
like Rs. 5,40,734/- without reflecting it in financial records is
unusual and casts doubt on the transaction’s legitimacy.
While non-disclosure in ITRs is not fatal, it weakens the
complainant’s case when coupled with other deficiencies, as
noted in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418,
where the court scrutinized the complainant’s financial
credibility.
b. Successful Rebuttal of the Presumption under Section 139 NI
Act: Section 139 NI Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a
cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The
burden lies on the accused to rebut this presumption on a
preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused has successfully rebutted the presumption through his
defense and evidence for the following reasons:
i. Consistent Defense of Cheque Theft/Misplacement: The
accused consistently maintained that the cheque was not
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 14/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiissued to the complainant and was either stolen or misplaced
from his office or while traveling. In his Section 251 Cr.P.C.
he stated that his cheque books were misplaced, some
cheques were signed and filled (intended for another Manoj
for a brick booking transaction), and a police complaint was
filed on 16-12-2017 (Mark DX1). This defense was
reiterated in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement and Section
315 Cr.P.C. testimony, where he clarified that two cheque
books, including signed blank cheques, were stolen, and the
cheque in question was misused. The Supreme Court in
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan held that a probable defense, such as
cheque theft or misuse, can rebut the presumption if
supported by credible circumstances.
ii. Police Complaint as Corroborative Evidence: The accused
produced a copy of a police complaint dated 16-12-2017
(Mark DX1) filed at P.S. Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, reporting
the loss of cheque books. The complainant’s counsel
objected to its admissibility for lacking a Section 65B IEA
certificate. The accused’s cross-examination (DW-1)
clarified that the police refused to register an FIR, directing
him to file a complaint, which explains the absence of an
FIR. This evidence creates a reasonable probability that the
cheque was not issued to the complainant, although the
accused failed to prove the complaint itself.
iii. Plausible Explanation of Cheque Misuse: The accused’s
Section 251 Cr.P.C. the statement provides a plausible
narrative that the cheque was filled and signed for a brick
booking transaction with another Manoj and was either
stolen from his office or misused by a neighbor, Rajender
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 15/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
Rana, against whom he also lodged a complaint. He further
stated that he believed the cheque was in Rana’s possession,
and the complainant, acquainted with Rana, may have
obtained it unlawfully. While the accused did not produce
Rana or the other Manoj as witnesses, the burden to rebut the
presumption does not require conclusive proof. The Supreme
Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC
513, held that a probable explanation, consistent with the
accused’s conduct, is sufficient to shift the burden back to
the complainant. The accused’s prior complaint against Rana
and the police complaint (Mark DX1) lend credence to this
narrative. Although the accused did not make serious efforts
to lead his defence evidence, coupled with shortcomings in
the complainant’s evidence, the lack of efforts on part of the
accused is not fatal for the defence.
iv. Accused’s Limited Relationship with Complainant: The
accused testified that he knew the complainant only through
his brother, who ran a gym in his neighborhood, and had no
transactional relationship with him. The complainant’s claim
of a 20-year acquaintance based on business dealings
(transport vs. building materials) is vague and unsupported
by evidence of prior transactions. The accused’s assertion
that he had no financial dealings with the complainant is
consistent with his defense of cheque misuse, creating doubt
about the alleged loan.
c. Benefit of Doubt: In criminal proceedings, including those under
Section 138 NI Act, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if
the evidence raises reasonable uncertainty about guilt. The
complainant’s failure to provide documentary evidence,
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 16/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
corroborate the loan with a witness, or clarify critical details
creates significant doubt about the debt’s existence. Conversely, the
accused’s police complaint, consistent denial of liability, and
plausible explanation of cheque misuse establish a reasonable
probability that the cheque was not issued for a debt. The Supreme
Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan clarified that once the accused
raises a probable defense, the complainant must prove the debt’s
existence, which the complainant has failed to do here.
10.Conclusion and Reason for decision:
a. The Issue no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the
complainant. In the issue no. 6, The accused was tacitly able to
rebut the presumption drawn against him by fracturing the case of
the complainant by rigorous cross examination to expose the latent
defects, whereas the complainant has failed to discharge the burden
of proving that the accused owed a legally enforceable debt or that
the cheque was issued to discharge such a liability.
b. The accused is able to cross the threshold of preponderance of
probabilities to prove his innocence and the complainant was
unable to establish his case for setting up statutory presumption
against the accused, due to failure of proving the transaction and
the non examination of key witnesses. Hence, the benefit of doubt
has to be extended to the accused, and thus the case of the
complainant does not survive the rigours of trial.
11.Order:
a. The accused Sh. Pramod Choudhary is acquitted of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act.
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 17/ 18
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhib. The bail bonds of the accused and the sureties (in any), that are
already filed in the court for the purpose of bail, are retained for the
purpose of section 437 A Cr.P.C for the period of six months from
today.
c. The signed copy of the judgement be uploaded on the CIS
immediately.
d. Let the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
e. Pronounced in open court and in presence of both the parties/
or their Counsels. (DIVYAM LILA)
Municipal Magistrate, East District
Karkardooma Court/Delhi
Date: 13.06.2025___________________________end of the document___________________
CC no. Manoj Kumar vs Pramod Choudhary page 18/ 18