Delhi District Court
Parampara vs Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi on 6 June, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Poonam Singh
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act-04)
West District, THC, New Delhi
1.
Complaint Case : 46997/2016
number
2. Name & address of the : Parampara
complainant Through its proprietor Sagar
Mehra
S/o Krishan Kumar Mehra
Office at :- F-39, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi-110066.
3. Name and address : Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi
of the accused At LA Suite Hotel
E-2/14, East Patel Nagar,
Opp. Sidharth Hotel, New
Delhi.
4. Offence complained : Section 138, Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Plea of the guilt : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : Acquitted
7. Date of institution : 20.06.2015
8. Date on which : 27.05.2025
reserved for judgment
9. Date of judgment : 06.06.2025
Digitally signed
CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM Page 1 of 18
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:26:22
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1. The undersigned has been transferred vide Order
No.16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI.E2(a)/2025 dated
30.05.2025 passed by Hon’ble High court of Delhi and
retained the present file for pronouncement of
judgment in terms of directions contained in para 2 of
the above said order.
2. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the
aforementioned complaint case filed by the
complainant namely, Parampara against the accused,
namely, Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi in respect of the
dishonor of one cheque bearing no.446668 dated
24.03.202015 for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs.
Thirty Lacs only) drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank,
M-14, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the “Cheque in question”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Succinctly put, it is the case of the complainant that
the accused was introduced by him by Bank Manager
of Punjab & Sind Bank and thereafter friendly
relations developed between the parties. Subsequently,
the accused demanded a loan of Rs. 15 Lacs from the
complainant. It is further the case of the complainant
that he gave a loan of Rs. 15 Lacs on 29.9.2009
through bank transfer from his proprietorship firm to
the account of the accused and the accused assured the
complainant to repay the said amount with interest
within 3 months. It is further the case of the
Digitally signed
CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM Page 2 of 18
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:26:36
+0530
complainant that after several requests, the accused
paid an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs to the complainant. It is
further alleged that on 09.03.2015 after telephonic
conversations between the parties, the accused
promised to clear the entire outstanding amount with
interest and a final figure of Rs.30 Lacs was agreed
between the parties.
4. It is further alleged that the accused issued the cheque
in question in discharge of his aforesaid legally
enforceable liability to repay the amount of Rs. 30
Lacs. Thereafter, when the complainant presented the
cheque in question for encashment, it was returned
dishonored for the reason “funds insufficient” vide
bank return memo dated 30.03.2015. Thereafter, the
complainant sent a legal demand notice dated
08.04.2015 through speed post and courier which was
duly served upon the accused. Since the accused failed
to pay the amount of the cheque in question within the
statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of legal
demand notice, hence, the complainant has moved this
court with the present complaint under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as the “NI Act“).
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND TRIAL
5. Upon prima facie consideration of the pre-summoning
evidence, accused was summoned vide order dated
06.10.2016.
6. Upon appearance of the accused, notice under Section 251
Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage, the accused
CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed
by POONAM
Page 3 of 18
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:26:42
+0530
admitted to be the drawer of the cheque in question and
stated that he has no knowledge how the cheque in question
came in possession of complainant. He further stated that
the cheque in question was already torn away and he had
given some other cheque having the cheque number prior to
the cheque number in question to the complainant for
friendly borrowing. He denied his liability towards the
complainant. He further stated that he had already repaid
the loan before filing of the present complaint. He further
stated that the cheque in question has been misused by the
complainant with intention to falsely implicate in the
present case. He denied the receipt of legal demand notice,
but admitted his signatures mentioned therein.
7. After an application under Section 145(2) NI Act made on
behalf of the accused was allowed, the complainant was re-
called for his cross-examination. He was duly cross
examined and discharged.
8. Since no other witness was sought to be examined by the
complainant, complainant evidence was closed vide his
separate statement dated 07.04.2022.
9. Statement of accused under Section 313 read with Section
281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 02.05.2022 whereby the entire
incriminating evidence was put to him. At this stage, the
accused primarily maintained his plea of defence raised at
the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. He
admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and
denied any other particulars therein. He stated that he had
not handed over the cheque in question to the complainant,
however, it was given to Mr Gulati, Branch Manager of
Punjab & Sind Bank. He further stated that he had given
Digitally
CC No.46997/2016 signed by
POONAM Page 4 of 18
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:26:56
+0530
three cheques to him and the cheque in question has been
misused by the complainant and the Branch Manager. He
denied the receipt of legal demand notice and denied his
address mentioned therein. He further stated that he had
taken Rs. 15 Lacs to the complainant and the same has been
returned to the complainant. He denied his liability towards
the complainant. He further stated that it is a false case
against him.
10.Since the accused chose to lead defence evidence, the
matter was adjourned for filing of application under Section
315 Cr.P.C and list of defence witnesses, if any.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE COMPLAINANT
11.In his support, the complainant examined himself on
affidavit being Ex.CW1/1 and placed on record certain
documents i.e. statement of account from 01.04.2009 to
07.04.2015 being Ex. CW1/A, ledger account of the
complainant being Ex. CW1/B, cheque in question being
Ex.CW1/C, bank return memo dated 30.03.2015 being
Ex.CW1/D, legal demand notice dated 08.04.2015 being
Ex.CW1/E, original postal receipt along with tracking
reports being Ex.CW1/F and returned envelopes being
Ex.CW1/G.
12.During his cross-examination the accused has produced
certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.CW1/DX1,
copy of document issued by Punjab & Sind Bank and copy
of certificate of importer-exporter code (IEC) i.e. Mark
CW1/DX2 and copy of ITRs i.e. Mark CW1/DX3.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE ACCUSED
Digitally
signed by
CC No.46997/2016 POONAM
POONAM
SINGH
Page 5 of 18
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:27:16
+0530
13.At the defence evidence stage, the accused examined Sh
Saurabh Soni, Officer Scale, IP & Sindh Bank as DW1 who
has brought his authority letter, cheque leafs status,
accounts statement of the accused and complainant and
certificate U/s 2A (a) of Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891
i.e. Ex.DW1/1 (Colly). The witness stated that the current
account of the accused was opened on 16.10.2003 and there
were three account holders i.e. Tarunpal Singh, Inderpal
Singh and Parminder Kaur. He further stated that there
were 9 cheques books issued for abovesaid account holder
and the cheque book no. 446601 was issued on 17.01.2008.
He admitted that cheque bearing no. 446668 was never
presented for encashment. After seeing the bank return
memo dated 30.03.2015, the witness admitted that there is
no sign on the same also. He was duly cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for the complainant and discharged.
14.Accused has also examined himself and deposed as DW-2.
Accused has also produced his aadhar card i.e. Ex.DW2
(OSR). He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
the complainant and discharged. During his cross-
examination, DW1 was confronted with affidavit
dated14.03.2016 and the witness has identified his
signatures at points A and B i.e. Ex.DX1.
15.Since no further witness was sought to be examined by the
accused in his defense, DE was closed vide his separate
statement dated 22.01.2025.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
16.Final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the
parties on 09.05.2025. Written submissions were filed on
behalf of both the parties.
Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM SINGH CC No.46997/2016 SINGH Date: 2025.06.06 Page 6 of 18 17:27:26 +0530
17.Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the
complainant has advanced a short-term friendly loan for an
amount of Rs.15 lakhs by way of a bank transfer at interest
of 3% per month which was to be repaid within 3 months.
That the accused failed to make the payment for quite some
time and subsequently, the accused paid an amount of Rs.
10 lakhs which was adjusted by the complainant towards
the interest due and a part towards principal amount. It is
further argued that subsequently and amount of
approximately 33 lakhs became due which was later settled
between the parties at an amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs. It is
further the case of the complainant that the cheque in
question was issued by the accused to discharge the
aforementioned liability.
18.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the
accused has already admitted his signatures on the cheque
in question and hence presumption of the cheque in
question having been issued in discharge of debt or other
liability arises in favor of the complainant in terms of
Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act. He further
argued that the documentary evidence placed on record by
the complainant to the fact that the complainant received no
payment within 15 days of the service of the legal demand
notice coupled with the admission of the accused, duly
proves all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138
NI Act. He thus submitted that since all the ingredients laid
down under Section 138 NI Act are fulfilled, the accused
should be convicted.
19. It is argued on behalf of the accused that his defense is
three-fold. Firstly, that he has not received the legal
CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed
by POONAM Page 7 of 18
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:27:32
+0530
demand notice. Secondly, that the cheque in question was
never presented for encashment and the return memo is not
genuine. Thirdly, that accused owed no legally enforceable
debt or liability towards the complainant to the tune of the
cheque amount as the cheque was issued as a blank signed
security cheque which has been misused by the
complainant. It is further argued on behalf of the accused
that the complainant’s story does not stand on its own legs
as the complainant has failed to prove the fact as to how the
alleged amount of Rs. 30 lakhs became due to the
complainant by the accused. It is further argued on behalf
of the accused that since all the ingredients of an offence
under Section 138 NI Act are not fulfilled, the present
complaint shall be dismissed.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
20.The following points of determination arise in the present
case:
1. Whether the complainant has been successful in raising
the presumptions under Section 118 read with Section
139 of NI Act.
2. If yes, whether the accused has been successful in
raising a probable defense.
THE LAW APPLICABLE
21.Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is
relevant to discuss the law applicable to the present
proceedings. To bring home a liability under Section 138
of the NI Act, following elements must spring out from the
averments in the complaint and the evidence adduced by
the complainant, which are:
“(a) The accused issued a cheque on an account
Digitally signed
CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM
POONAM SINGH Page 8 of 18
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:27:39 +0530
maintained by him with a bank.
(b) The said cheque has been issued in discharge,
in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other
liability, which is legally enforceable.
(c) The said cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of three months from the date
of cheque or within the period of its validity.
(d) The aforesaid cheque, when presented for
encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
(e) The payee of the cheque issued a legal notice
of demand to the drawer within 30 days from
the receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque.
(f) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the
payment within 15 days of the receipt of
aforesaid legal notice of demand.”
22.Once the other ingredients mentioned in the foregoing
paragraph are established by the complainant, then as soon
as the execution of cheque in question is admitted by the
accused, a factual base is established to invoke the
presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or other liability by virtue of
Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act. This is a
reverse onus clause, which means that unless the contrary is
proved, it shall be presumed that the cheque in question
was drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the
complainant had received it in discharge of a debt/ liability
from the accused. In the case titled Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India that once the accused has admitted the
signatures on the cheque in question, then the court is
bound to raise presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
FINDINGS AND REASONING
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO.1
Digitally
signed by
CC No.46997/2016 POONAM Page 9 of 18
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:27:51
+0530
23. The complainant who deposed as CW-1 has discharged his
initial burden on the basis of the documents mentioned
hereinbefore. The accused has admitted that the cheque in
question was drawn on his account and bears his signature.
The reason for dishonor of cheque in question as mentioned
in cheque return memo Ex. CW 1/B is “Funds Insufficient”.
The return memo being stamped and signed by the official
of the concerned bank, the presumption of dishonor under
section 146, NI Act arises. The accused has disputed the
dishonor of the cheque as well as receipt of legal demand
notice.
24.With regard to argument of non-receipt of legal demand
notice by the accused it is pertinent to note that the accused
has admitted his address mentioned on legal demand notice
Ex. CW1/C and postal receipts Ex. CW1/D(Colly).
Therefore, it emerges that the legal demand notice, being
properly addressed and posted by the complainant, as
proved by the original postal receipts and tracking reports
thereof is presumed to have been delivered to the accused
in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and the accused has failed to rebut this presumption.
25.Further, it is an admitted fact that payment was not made by
the accused within 15 days of the deemed receipt of the
legal demand notice. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the decision cited as C.C. Alavi Haji vs.
Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555 that 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 the Act, cannot obviously
contend that there was no proper service of notice as
CC No.46997/2016 Page 10 of 18
Digitally signed
by POONAM
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:28:00
+0530
required under Section 138 NI Act, by ignoring statutory
presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Thus, the plea of the accused that the legal
demand notice was never received by him is not tenable on
this ground as well and is accordingly rejected.
26.Further on defense that the complainant has never presented
the cheque for encashment, the accused has examined the
Bank witness of the complainant bank as DW1. DW1 has
deposed that it is correct that cheque no 446668 has never
been presented for encashment. He further deposed that
there is no signature on the bank return memo which is
Ex.CW1/D and that it might be a fabricated document.
However, DW1 was shown the back side of the Bank return
memo on his cross-examination conducted on 11.01.2024,
wherein he stated that the bank return memo does bear the
signature of the bank manager as well as the reason for
dishonor. The DW1 further deposed that what he meant to
depose was that the stamp of the bank on the front of the
bank return memo does not bear any signature. The DW1
was further cross-examined by the counsel for the
complainant on the procedure of clearing of cheque in the
year 2015 in cases of intra bank transaction as was the case
in the present matter. The bank witness could not with
certainty depose that the cheque was never presented for
encashment.
27.Considering the documentary evidence led by the
complainant and the admissions of the accused, all the other
ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act
stand successfully established. Further, since the accused
CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed
by POONAM Page 11 of 18
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:28:07
+0530
has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and
the fact of issuance of the same from his account, thus, the
presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act
arise against the accused with respect to the existence of
legally enforceable debt/liability in favour of the
complainant. Accordingly, the point of determination no. 1
is decided in affirmative.
28.The onus is now upon the accused to rebut the mandatory
presumptions under the NI Act by raising a probable
defence to show that the cheque in question was not issued
in discharge of a debt/ liability.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 2
29.In order to rebut the mandatory presumptions, the accused
has raised a defense that there is no legally enforceable debt
or liability to the tune of the amount of the cheque in
question against the accused.
30.It is the case of the accused that the complainant has
advanced him an interest free friendly loan of an amount of
Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is further the case of the accused that he
has repaid the entire loan amount by paying Rs. 10,00,000
by way of a bank transaction and Rs. 5 lakhs in cash. It is
further the case of the accused that the complainant has
misused the security cheque in question by filling in an
exaggerated amount.
31.As regards the rebuttal of mandatory presumptions, it is a
settled law that the presumption under Section 139 of the
NI Act cannot be rebutted upon a mere denial but only by
leading cogent evidence. Same was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the decision cited as K.N. Beena
Vs. Muniyappan and Another; (2001) 8 SCC 458. Further,
Digitally signed
CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM
POONAM SINGH Page 12 of 18
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:28:15
+0530
the presumptions may be rebutted by the accused either by
leading direct evidence and in exceptional cases, from the
case set out by the complainant himself i.e. from the
averments in his complaint, in the statutory notice and even
the evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial.
The burden of proof is to be discharged by the accused on a
scale of ‘preponderance of probabilities.’ Same was held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited as M/s
Kumar Exports Vs. M/s Sharma Carpets; 2009 AIR (SC)
1518.
32.Further with regard to friendly loans advanced in cash as is
the case in the present complaint the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in Amit Jain vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr (Crl.A.
1248/2019) held that –
“The accused often gets away with an acquittal,
despite having tendered and even admitting to the cheque,
merely because the complainant is unable to produce
documents to support the existence of the debt (usually in
the form of a friendly loan provided in cash, which does
not have any document trail). It would be unwise for the
court to not acknowledge that friendly cash loans are
provided by parties, sometimes based on small savings of
the lender. In these circumstances rather than focussing on
the question as to why the accused gave the cheque in the
first place (which he or she admits), the complainant is left
unhinged for inability to provide any documentation. Often
when accused is asked by the court, as to for what purpose
they gave the cheque in the first place, a cogent and
rational answer is not forthcoming”.
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM
CC No.46997/2016 SINGH
SINGH
Date: Page 13 of 18
2025.06.06
17:28:21
+0530
It was further observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
that mostly in cases of friendly loans instead of having the
accused prove to the contrary, the accused is acquitted
without having led any defence evidence and purely relying
upon the inconsistencies in the affirmative proof provided
by the complainant. The law and its application, is therefore
turned on its head in case of dishonour of cheques
pertaining to friendly loans advanced by the complainant.
33.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh,
SLP (Crl.) No. 12802 of 2022 dated 9.10.23 held that
“At the stage when the courts concluded that the
signature had been admitted, the Court ought to
have inquired into either of the two questions
(depending on the method in which accused has
chosen to rebut the presumption): Has the accused
led any defense evidence to prove and conclusively
establish that there existed no debt/liability at the
time of issuance of cheque? In the absence of
rebuttal evidence being led the inquiry would entail:
Has the accused proved the nonexistence of
debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by
referring to the ‘particular circumstances of the
case’?”
34. In the case in hand, it is the complainant’s case that he
has advanced an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the accused at
the interest of 3% per month. And subsequently the
outstanding due was settled between the parties to be Rs.
30,00,000/- for repayment of which the accused has
issued the cheque in question. In order to rebut the
Digitally
CC No.46997/2016 signed by
POONAM Page 14 of 18
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:28:28
+0530
mandatory presumption, the accused in the present case
has cross-examined the complainant and has also led
defense evidence.
35.The fact that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was advanced
by the complainant to the accused is not disputed between
the parties. What is in dispute is the rate of interest at
which the loan was advanced as well as the term for
which the loan was advanced. In his cross-examination
the complainant has deposed that no written loan
agreement was executed between the parties settling the
terms of the loan agreement. Further the complainant has
also deposed that it is correct that no demand in writing
was ever made by the compliant to the accused for
repayment of the loan amount. The complainant was also
asked to furnish his balance sheet, ITR and statement of
profit and loss. The complainant in his cross-examination
also deposed that it is correct that none of the above-
mentioned documents mention the liability of
Rs,30,00,000 or more due from the accused to the
complainant. Complainant has also not proved any
document to show that the loan was advanced at interest
of 3% per month.
36.Further it is the case of the complainant that the actual
outstanding liability was approximately Rs. 33,00,000/-
which was settled between the parties at an amount of Rs.
30,00,000/-. Again, in his cross-examination the
complainant deposed that this settlement was only
telephonic and that there is no proof documentary or
otherwise to prove that the accused has agreed to pay Rs.
30,00,000/- to the complainant and issued the cheque in
Digitally
CC No.46997/2016 signed by
POONAM
Page 15 of 18
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:28:35
+0530
question towards its payment.
37.The only document that the complainant has furnished to
prove the liability of Rs. 30,00,000/- is a ledger
maintained by the complainant which is Ex. CW1/B. It is
pertinent to note that CW1/B does not bear any
confirmation or acknowledgment of the accused. Further
it is not attested or certified by the CA of the complainant
firm. The complainant was deposed on the genuineness of
CW1/B by the accused. In his cross-examination held on
22.07.2019 the complainant deposed that it is correct that
CW1/B does not mention the details of the person who
has maintained the same and that 65 B Indian Evidence
Act certificate was also not filed on record. However, on
the same day the CW1 filed a certificate under Section 65
B Indian Evidence Act under his name for the fact that he
has taken out its printout. The complainant has also
deposed with regard to Ex. CW1/B that it is correct that
Ex.CW1/B does not bear stamps or signature of any CA
or tax consultant and that it was never audited.
38.With regard to evidentiary value of a ledger account it is a
settled position of law that even if a statement of accounts
contains correct and authentic entries, the same cannot,
without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix
a liability upon the accused. Reliance in this regard is
placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CBI
Vs. V C Shukla AIR 1998 SC 1406. Hence, in the
considered opinion of this court, Ex. CW1/B by itself is
not sufficient to establish the liability of the accused in
terms of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as
from the perusal of the Ex. CW1/B alone, it cannot be
CC No.46997/2016 Digitally
signed by Page 16 of 18
POONAM
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:28:44
+0530
deduced as to how and in what manner the outstanding
liability of Rs. 30,00,000/- became due against the
accused.
39.Further the complainant has deposed that the accused was
introduced to the complainant by Mr. Gulati, the bank
manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Cannaught Place and
the loan was advanced to the accused at the insistence of
another manager Mr. Bhatia. However it is pertinent to
note that the complainant has failed to examine any of the
aforementioned persons as his witness to prove the terms
of the agreement.
40.It is imperative to understand that in order to pronounce a
conviction in a criminal case, the accused ‘must be’ guilty
and not merely ‘may be’ guilty. For an accused to be
guilty, guilt should not be based on mere surmises and
conjectures but it should be based on cogent evidence. In
the present case, the accused has clearly presented a
defense that is more probable than the complainant’s story
and consequently, the benefit of doubt must go to him.
41.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court has no
hesitation to hold that the liability of the accused as on the
date of the presentation of the cheque in question is not
established to the tune of the amount mentioned therein.
Hence, this court has arrived at an irresistible conclusion
that the accused has been able to prove the non-existence
of liability by preponderance of probabilities by referring
to particular circumstances of the case. Complainant on
the other hand has utterly failed to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt qua the existence of liability of the
accused to the tune of amount of the cheque in question.
Digitally
signed by
CC No.46997/2016 POONAM
POONAM
SINGH
Page 17 of 18
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:28:51
+0530
42.The onus has now shifted back upon the complainant to
prove the second ingredient of the offence under Section
138 NI Act, regarding the issuance of the cheque in
question for any legal debt or other liability equivalent to
the amount mentioned therein. The complainant has not
taken any steps thereafter to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt; this court has fairly arrived at the
conclusion that the complainant’s case does not stand on
its own legs. Accordingly point of determination no.2 is
decided in affirmative.
FINAL ORDER
43.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds the
accused Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi, S/o Lt. Sardar Ajit Singh
not guilty of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and acquits him accordingly.
44.This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been
signed by the Presiding Officer.
Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM SINGH Announced in open SINGH Date: 2025.06.06 Court on 06th June, 2025 17:29:00 +0530 (POONAM SINGH) JMFC(N.I.Act)-04/West, THC/Delhi/06.06.2025 CC No.46997/2016 Page 18 of 18