Delhi District CourtChaman Lal vs . Gaurav Vig on 3 January, 2018IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARG,
  METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE(NI Act)-03 (SOUTH):SAKET
                COURTS:NEW DELHI

CC NO: 470033/2016

Chaman Lal
S/o Mr. Shakar Lal
R/o B-4/156, IIIrd Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi - 110029

                                                ...............Complainant

Versus

Mr. Gaurav Vig
S/o Sh. Pramod Vigilance
C/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Bery
R/o H. No.7H, Pocket-L, Sheikh Sarai-II,
New Delhi - 110017

Also at:
R/o H. No.37G, Pocket-L
Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi - 110017
                                                     ................Accused


Offence Complained of or proved    :       Undersection 138of
                                           Negotiable Instruments
                                           Act, 1881
Plea of the Accused                :       Pleaded not guilty
Date of filing                     :       30.10.2015
Date of Institution                :       02.11.2015
Date of reserving judgment/order   :       18.12.2017
Final Order/Judgment               :       Acquitted
Date of pronouncement              :       03.01.2018


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018
Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                        Page 1 of 30
 JUDGMENT:BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE
CASE:-1. By this judgement, I will dispose of the present complaint filed by

       the complainant on 30.10.2015 on account of dishonour of cheque

       bearing no.102501 dated 29.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-drawn by accused in favour of complainant on his bank account

       maintained at Central Bank of India, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi

       (hereinafter referred as the "cheque in question").2. Brief case of the complainant as per complaint is that the father-in-

       law of the accused being the close friend of complainant had

       approached the complainant for financial help for a sum of

       Rs.6,00,000/- in the end of December 2014 and on the assurance of

       accused to execute and handover the cheque in question,

       complainant gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the father-in-law of the

       accused somewhere in the third week of January 2015 in the

       presence of accused and some other near and dears after arranging

       the same from his resources and from his son who is serving

       abroad. It is further the case of complainant that simultaneously

       the accused had executed and handed over the cheque in question

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                         Page 2 of 30in discharge of liability of his father-in-law leaving the name and

       date blank with mutual understanding, authorizing the complainant

       to fill up the same as per his convenicene. The date of presentation

       of the cheque, according to the complainant, was extended from

       time to time and finally as per mutual discussion and commitments

       of accused to compensate the complainant for delay in payment of

       money, the cheque in question was presented by complainant for

       enashment on 16.09.2015, however, the same was returned unpaid

       with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated

       18.09.2015, whereupon the legal notice of demand dated

       01.10.2015 was sent by complainant to the accused at the correct

       address, however, when the notice was received back by him

       unserved, he has resent the notice with corrigendum notice dated

       09.10.2015 at all known addresses of accused and the notice was

       duly served upon the accused on 10.10.2015 at one of his

       addresses, whereas, the notice sent to another address was received

       back unserved. Since, according to the complainant, the accused

       has failed to make the payment of cheque amount in question

       despite expiry of 15 days from the date of service of legal notice of


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                          Page 3 of 30demand, he has committed the offenceu/s 138of NI Act, 1881.3. Upon receipt of complaint, cognizance of the offence was taken

       and the accused was summoned vide order dated 02.11.2015.

       Accused entered his appearance through his counsel on 21.12.2015

       and was admitted to bail vide order dated 14.01.2016. Notice underSection 251CrPC was served upon the accused on 07.06.2016 and

       plea of accused was recorded. Accused did not plead guilty and

       claimed trial and has taken the defence that the complainant being

       the old friend of his father-in-law used to regulary visit the house

       as well as office of the accused alongwith his father-in-law. He had

       never issued the cheque in question to the complainant and same

       has been misused by complainant after filling in the name, date and

       amount. He has further taken the defence that that legal notice of

       demand was never received by him and that he has no legal

       liability towards the complainant against the cheque in question.4. On an application of the accusedu/s 145(2)of NI Act, accused was

       permitted to cross examine the complainant. Complainant adopted

       his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, which was tendered by him in his pre-

       summoning evidence as his post summoning evidence and has


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                         Page 4 of 30relied upon the following documents:Ex. CW-1/A : Original cheque bearing no.102501 dated
       29.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- issued by accused in favour
       of complainant
       Ex. CW-1/B : Original cheque return memo dated 18.09.2015 in
       respect of cheque in question
       Ex. CW-1/C : Legal notice of demand dated 01.10.2015
       Ex. CW-1/D : Returned envelope containing the legal notice.Ex. CW-1/E : Corrigendum dated 09.10.2015 of legal notice of
       demand dated 01.10.2015
       Ex. CW-1/F : Postal receipts regarding dispatch of corrigendum of
       legal notice.Ex. CW-1/G : Internet generated delivery report of corrigendum to
       legal notice.Ex. CW-1/H : Original returned envelope containing the aforesaid
       corrigendum to legal notice.Ex. CW-1/I : Copy of alleged acknowledgement of his liability by
       father-in-law of accused before the SHO PS-Sarojini Nagar.
       Ex. CW-1/1 : Present Complaintu/s 138of Negotiable Instruments
       Act.It is significant to note that though in the examination in chief,

       complainant has referred to the documents as Ex.CW-1/1 to

       Ex.CW-1/9, however, the documents are actually Ex.CW-1/A to

       Ex.CW-1/I as mentioned hereinabove.Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                       Page 5 of 305. Sh. Sampat Ram one of the relatives of the complainant has been

       examined by complainant as CW-2, who has tendered his evidence

       by way of affidavit Ex.CW-2/A and has supported the case of the

       complainant in his evidence by way of affidavit. Both CW-1 &

       CW-2 were duly cross examined by counsel for accused and

       thereafter, on a separate statement of complainant, CE was closed

       vide order dated 30.08.2017.6. Accused were thereafter examined underSection 313CrPC on

       14.11.2017 wherein he has once again reiterated the defence taken

       by him during his plea u/s 251 CrP.C. and denied the issuance of

       cheque in question in favour of complainant. He has admitted his

       signatures on the cheque in question but denied that the remaining

       particulars in the cheque are in his handwriting. He further denied

       the receipt of legal notice of demand allegedly served by

       complainant on him. Accused chose to lead evidence in his defence

       and has examined hismself as a sole witness i.e. DW-1 in his

       defence after his applicationu/s 315Cr.P.C. was allowed by the

       Court.7. During his examination in chief DW-1 has once again re-affirmed


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                        Page 6 of 30the defence raised by him during his pleau/s 251Cr.P.C. andu/s

       313Cr.P.C. He was duly cross examined by counsel for

       complainant and thereafter, on a spearate statement of accused, DE

       was closed vide order dated 29.11.2017 and matter was fixed for

       final arguments. Final arguments on behalf of the parties have

       thereafter been heard on 18.12.2017.8. It is submitted by Counsel for complainant that the complainant

       has been able to prove all the ingredients of offenceu/s 138of NI

       Act against the accused. He submits that since the accused has

       admitted his signatures on the cheque Ex.CW-1/A, there arises a

       presumption in favour of complainantu/s 118&139of NI Act

       read withSection 4of Indian Evidence Act and the onus to rebut

       the said presumption was upon the accused. He submits that the

       manner in which accused could have discharged his onus has been

       authoratitively laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court inHiten P

       Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee(2001) 6 SCC 16 and

       Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898.According to him,

       the accused has failed to dischage his burden to rebut the aforesaid

       presumption as per the standard of proof required in terms of


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                         Page 7 of 30aforesaid judgments. He submits that alleged defence of theft of

       blank signed cheque by complainant is not available to the accused

       once he has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question in

       the absence of any positive defence in this regard. He submits that

       accused has failed to lodge any complaint regarding theft of blank

       signed cheque and hence, an adverse inference needs to be drawn

       against the accused.9. Besides, according to him, the complainant has been able to prove

       the service of legal notice of demand upon the accused in view of

       the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court inK. Bhaskaran Vs.

       Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and AnrAIR 1999 SC 3762 and C. C.

       Alavi Haji VS Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. JT 2007 (7) SC 498,

       since the notice was admittedly sent by the complainant to the

       correct address of father-in-law of accused. Besides, according to

       him, the said defence is not available to the accused since the

       accused has failed to tender the cheque amount to the complainant

       within 15 days of receipt of copy of legal notice alongwith

       summons of the Court.10. Even otherwise, according to counsel of complainant, complainant


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                        Page 8 of 30has been able to prove the liability of father-in-law of the accused

       to the extent of cheque amount in question towards the

       complainant by way of document Ex.CW-1/I wherein father-in-law

       of accused has admitted his liability towards several persons

       including the complainant and since the accused has failed to

       examine his father-in-law in his defence, an adverse inference

       needs to be drawn against him for withholding the best evidence.In support of his aforesaid submissions, counsel for accused has

       relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court inGopal

       Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and Anr.(1968) 3 SCR

       862 and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inNiranjan Kaur Vs. New Delhi Hotes Ltd.AIR 1988 Delhi 332.11. He further submits that once the liability of father-in-law of

       accused towards the complainant to the extent of cheque amount in

       question has been proved by complainant, accused cannot escape

       from his liabiltiyu/s 138of NI Act in view of judgment of Hon'ble

       Supreme Court in Anil Sachar & Anr. Vs. M/s. Shree Nath

       Spinners P. Ltd. And Ors etc 2011 (3) Criminal CourtCases 760

       (SC) and I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs Beena Shabeer & Anr.2002 (3) JCC


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                         Page 9 of 301472.12. Besides, according to him, the defence of the accused regarding

       theft of cheque in question by the complainant is liable to be

       rejected at once in view of the fact that accused has not lodged any

       police complaint nor has he explained as to why he had kept the

       blank signed cheque at his residence/office. In support of his

       aforesaid contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble

       High Court in Puneet Kumar Aggarwal Vs. M/s. Imaginations

       Agri Exports & Others decided on 19.02.2013. He has thus prayed

       for conviction of the accused for the offenceu/s 138NI Act.13. On the other hand, it is submitted by Counsel for accused that the

       Complainant has failed to prove on record the basic facts that the

       father-in-law of the accused had availed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-

       from the complainant and accused stood as a guarantor for

       repayment of the same, in as much as, during his cross

       examination complainant could not prove the sources of funds to

       the extent of such huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. According to

       him, the complainant has taken a false plea that he had arranged

       the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from his son who was leaving abroad and


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                        Page 10 of 30the balance amount from his near and dears, in as much as, a bare

       perusal of his passport shows that he has never visited his son

       after the alleged demand of financial assistance by father-in-law of

       accused from him till the date when the alleged amount of loan

       was given by him to the father-in-law of the accused. Besides,

       according to him, the complainant could not give the details of

       names of his friends/relatives from whom the balance amount of

       Rs.2,00,000/- was arranged by him. It is further submitted by him

       that complainant has admittedly not disclosed the loan in question

       in his ITR and the bare perusal of ITR of relevant year shows that

       his income of complainant during the aforesaid year was

       Rs.3,00,000/- and hence, he could not have advanced the loan of

       Rs.5,00,000/- on his own. He submits that complainant has not

       even informed the RBI regarding the alleged procurement of 5000

       US Dollars by him from his son who was living abroad and has

       also not divulged the details of conversion of US Dollars into

       Indian currency during his cross examination.14. Besides, according to him, the complainant has deliberately not

       sent the legal notice of demand to the correct address of the


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                        Page 11 of 30accused despite the fact that the same was well within his

       knowledge which is apparent from the fact that within few days

       after alleged dispatch of legal notice of demand by complainant to

       the incorrect address of the accused, the present complaint has

       been filed by him mentioning the correct address of the accused

       and the complainant has failed to explain as to from where and

       when he had got the correct address of the accused as mentioned in

       the complaint.15. The alleged document Ex.CW-1/I relied upon by complainant,

       according to counsel for complainant, is forged and fabricated and

       the same has not been properly proved by the accused by

       examining the officials from PS-Sarajini Nagar. Besides, according

       to him, the testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2 are contradictory in

       material particulars as to the circumstances under which the

       cheque in question was allegedly given by accused to the

       complainant. He submits that though according to CW-1, when the

       cheque in question was handed over by accused to the

       complainant, date and name of payee was not mentioned in the

       same but according to CW-2, at the time of handing over the


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                      Page 12 of 30cheque in question, the same was duly filled in. Thus, according to

       him, the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque in

       question was issued by accused in discharge of his liability or the

       liability of his father-in-law towards the complainant and hence,

       the accused is entitled to be accquitted of chargesu/s 138of NI

       Act. In support of his aforesaid submissions, counsel for accused

       has relied upon the following judgments:I.      K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu2015 (1) Criminal
       Court Cases 103 (SC)
       II.     John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham & Anr. 2014 (1)
       Criminal Court Cases 058 (SC)
       III.S. K. Jain Vs. Vijay Kalra2014 (2) Criminal Court Cases
       370 (Delhi)
       IV.     Satish Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2014 (1)
       Criminal Court Cases 305 (Delhi)
       V.      M/s.Ajaya Industries Vs. Gulshan Rai Malhotra2014(1)
       Criminal Court Cases 530 (P&H).16. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties, the

       following questions  arise for determination by this court:­(a) Whether the complaint of the complainant is liable to be
       dismissed on account of non­service of mandatory legal notice

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                         Page 13 of 30of demand  in terms of proviso (b) ofSection 138of NI Act?(b) Whether the accused has been able to prove that cheque in
       question   was   not   issued   by   the   accused   in   favour   of
       complainant in discharge of his or his father­in­law's liability
       towards the complainant?I shall deal with the aforesaid questions in seriatum herein below:­(a)   Whether   the   complaint   of   the   complainant   is   liable   to   be
       dismissed on account of non­service of mandatory legal notice of
       demand  in terms of proviso (b) ofSection 138of NI Act?17.  A bare perusal of legal notice of demand as well as postal receipt

       Ex.CW­1/C shows that the notice was sent by the complainant to

       H. No.37G, Pocket­K, Sheikh Sarai­II, New Delhi­ 110017 and the

       same was received back by counsel for complainant unserved with

       the remarks that no person in the name of accused was residing at

       the   said   address.   Immediately,   on   receipt   of   unserved   notice,

       counsel for complainant has sent corrigendum Ex.CW­1/E to the

       same   address   alongwith   another   address   of   father­in­law   of   the

       accused.   The   notice   sent   to   father­in­law   of   the   accused   was

       allegedly   delivered   to   the   addressee   on   10.10.2015   whereas   the

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                  Page 14 of 30notice  sent  to the  address  of   accused  i.e.  H. No.K/37G,  Sheikh

       Sarai­II,   New   Delhi   -   110017   was   once   again   received   back

       undelivered with the report that no person in the name of accused

       is residing at the said address. Interestingly, both the notices were

       sent by complainant on 01.10.2015 & 10.10.2015 respectively by

       mentioning   the   wrong   address   but   in   the   complaint   filed   on

       30.10.2015,   the   correct   address   of   the   accused   i.e.   H.   No.37G,

       Pocket­L,   Sheikh   Sarai­II,   New   Delhi   -   110017   has   been

       mentioned by complainant as opposed to the addresses mentioned

       in the notice Ex.CW­1/C and corrigendum Ex.CW­1/E. There is no

       averments in the complaint or evidence by way of affidaivt of the

       complainant as to when and how, the complainant has been able to

       procure the correct address of the accused after dispatch of legal

       notice Ex.CW­1/C and corrigendum Ex.CW­1/E. It appears that

       complainant had all along been in possession of correct address of

       accused, however, he did not dispatch the legal notice of demand

       to the correct address of the accused for reasons best known to

       him.Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                  Page 15 of 3018. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, the accused has been able to

       prove on the basis of material available on record that the legal

       notice of  demand was never sent by complainant to the correct

       address   of   the   accused   and   once   the   complainant   has   failed   to

       prove that the legal notice of demand was sent by him through

       registered   post/speed   post   at   correct   address   of   the   accused,   no

       presumption either in terms ofSection 27of General Clauses Act

       or in terms ofSection 114of Indian Evidence Act can be raised in

       favour of complainant regarding service of legal notice of demand

       upon the accused. In the absence of applicability of  provisions of

       114 ofIndian Evidence ActandSection 27of General Clauses

       Act,   complainant   cannot   seek   assitance   from   the   observations

       made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran's case (Supra)

       and in para no.17 of  C. C. Alavi Haji's (Supra). What has been

       laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgments is that

       once the complainant has been able to prove on record the dispatch

       of legal  notice of  demand by him to the correct address of  hte



Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                    Page 16 of 30accused, formal proof of service of legal notice upon the accused

       may   be   dispensed   with   by   the   Court   and   accused   cannot   be

       permitted to take the plea of non­service of legal notice of demand

       in the wake of presumption underSection 27of General Clauses

       Act   and   114   ofIndian   Evidence   Act,   if   he   fails   to   tender   the

       cheque amount in question within 15 days of receipt of summons

       from the Court. Thus, giving of notice (meaning thereby dispatch

       of same to the correct address of accused) is mandatory in terms of

       proviso (b) ofSection 138of NI Act and in the absence of such

       notice, no cause of action in terms ofSection 138of NI Act, which

       arises only after expiry of 15 days from the date of service/deemed

       service of legal notice of demand, arises in favour of complainant

       for filing of the present complaintu/s 138of NI Act.While taking

       the aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble

       Punjab   &   Haryana   High   Court   in  M/s.Ajaya   Industries   Vs.

       Gulshan   Rai   Malhotra(2014)   1   Criminal   Court   Cases   530

       (P&H) wherein Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld



Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                      Page 17 of 30the judgment of accquital passed by Trial Court for want of proof

       of dispatch of legal notice of demand by complainant to the correct

       address   of   accused   after   referring   to   the   judgment   of   Hon'ble

       Supreme Court in C. C. Alavi Haji's case (supra).19. So far as the dispatch of legal notice of demand by the complainant

       to the address of father­in­law of the accused is concerned, in my

       considered   opinion,   service   upon   father­in­law   of   the   accused,

       even   if  assumed  to  have   been  proved,  cannot  be  deemed   to  be

       service   upon   the   accused   in   the   absence   of   any   specific

       authorization   by   the   accused   of   his   father­in­law   to   receive   the

       notice on his behalf. The clue in this regard can be taken from the

       provisions ofSection 61&64Cr.P.C. which provides the manner

       in which summons can be served upon the accused.Section 64of

       Cr.P.C. contemplates service of summons upon some adult male

       member of family of the accused residing with the accused. It is

       not the case of the complainant that accused had ever been residing

       with his father­in­law  at the address ­H. No.7H, Pocket­L, Sheikh



Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                    Page 18 of 30Sarai­II, New Delhi - 110017. In view of the aforesaid discussion,

       the first question is answered in affirmative.(b) Whether the accused has been able to prove that cheque in
       question   was   not   issued   by   the   accused   in   favour   of
       complainant in discharge of his or his father­in­law's liability
       towards the complainant?20. Before adverting to the 2nd  question, I would like to narrate the

       legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and

       various High Courts including our own High Court which one

       helpful in adjudication of a complaintu/s 138of NI Act. In my

       considered opinion, it is now well settled that in case the accused

       admits his signatures on the cheque in question, there arises a

       presumption in terms ofSections 118(a)and139of the NI Act to

       the effect that the same was issued for valid consideration and in

       discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.Though a

       Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inKrishna

       Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 has

       observed that the presumption underSection 139of the NI Act

       does not go to the extent of presuming the existence of a legally



Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                         Page 19 of 30recoverable debt, however in a later judgment titled asRangappa

       v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 a larger Bench of Hon'ble

       Supreme Court has expressed its disagreement with the aforesaid

       view holding that there is also an initial presumption regarding the

       existence of legally recoverable liability underSection 139of the

       NI Act. Further, it has been held that the presumptions underSections 118(a)and139of the NI Act are rebuttable in nature and

       for rebuttal of the same accused need not even step into the witness

       box as the accused can rebut the same by placing reliance on the

       material brought on record by the complainant. It is also well

       settled legal position that the presumptions can be rebutted even by

       raising presumptions of facts and law on the basis of material

       available on record.The aforesaid propositions of law have beenlaid down byHon'ble Supreme Court in M/sBharat Barrel &

       Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Pyarelal(1999) 3 SCC 35,

       Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (Supra) and Rangappa v. Sri

       Mohan's case (Supra).It is further well settled in the aforesaid

       judgments that the standard required from the accused to prove his

       defence is preponderance of probabilities and accused need not


Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                        Page 20 of 30prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts.21.Now   let   us   examine   the   facts   of   case   in   hand   in   the   light   of

       aforesaid   legal   principles.   In   the   present   case,   complainant   has

       alleged that he had given a loan of Rs.5 lakhs to the father­in­law

       of the accused in the presence of the accused and some common

       friends, after arranging the same from his son and his resources

       and accused had simultaneously issued the cheque in question in

       discharge of the aforesaid liability by leaving the name of payee

       and date as blank. The accused has consistently taken the defence

       during   his   plea   underSection   251Cr.P.C,   examination   underSection 313Cr.PC and examination underSection 315Cr.PC that

       the   cheque   in   question   had   never   been   given   by   him   to   the

       complainant  as alleged by the complainant and the complainant

       seems to have taken away blank signed cheque of accused during

       one of his visits to the office of accused alongwith father­in­law of

       the accused. He has also denied his liability to the extent of cheque

       amount in question towards the complainant or that he had stood as

       guarantor   for   the   sum   of   Rs.5   lakhs   and   issued   the   cheque   in

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                      Page 21 of 30question in favour of complainant.22. Since the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque in

       question, there arises a presumption in terms ofSections 118(a)and139of the NI Act that the cheque in question would have been

       issued by him in favour of complainant for consideration and in

       discharge   of   his   legally   enforceable   liability   towards   the

       complainant. There can also be no dispute about the preposition of

       law that dishonor of cheque issued in discharge of liability of any

       person   other   than   the   drawer   of   cheque   shall   also   attract   the

       provision   ofSection  138of   NI   Act.   However,  the   presumption

       arising in favour of complainant in terms ofSections 118(a)and139of   the   NI   Act   is   rebuttable   in   nature   and   in   view   of

       authoritative   pronouncement   of   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   as   well

       Hon'ble Delhi  High Court relied upon by counsels for both the

       parties and referred to by this court in para no.20 of this judgment,

       the accused need not even step into the witness box for rebuttal of

       the   said   presumptions   as   the   same   can   be   rebutted   by   cross

       examination of complainant's witnesses and by relying upon the

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                   Page 22 of 30material brought on record by the complainant himself.23. Besides, the standard of proof required from the accused to rebut

       the presumption is preponderance of probabilities and accused is

       not required to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts. In the

       case   in   hand,   accused   has   cross   examined   the   complainant   at

       length   on   three   dates   and   during   his   cross   examination   of

       complainant, accused has tried to elicit the information from the

       complainant regarding the source of funds from which the alleged

       loan of Rs.5 lakhs was given by complainant to the accused in as

       much as existence of liability of accused towards the complainant

       has   been   denied   by   the   accused.   The   complainant   has   deposed

       during   his   cross   examination   that   the   father­in­law   of   accused

       alongwith accused had  jointly requested  for  the loan amount in

       December 2014 and the loan was given by the complainant to the

       accused and his father­in­law around 28­29 January, 2015. He has

       further deposed that part amount i.e. sum of Rs.3 lakhs, was given

       to   the   complainant   by   his   son   Vijender   Kumar   when   the

       complainant had visited him abroad and that he had informed his

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                Page 23 of 30son that the same was needed by him for the purpose of giving of

       loan to accused and his father­in­law. During his cross examination

       dated   19.09.2016,   complainant   had   produced   the   copy   of   his

       passport which is Ex.CW1/D1 which shows that the complainant

       departed from India from New Delhi on 23.12.2015 and came back

       to India on 26.02.2016. A perusal of the passport further shows

       that the complainant had also visited US during 10.04.2014 and

       05.08.2014. No other endorsement regarding any other visit of the

       complainant to US during December 2014 to February 2015 can be

       found on the passport Ex.CW1/D1.24. The aforesaid facts expose the falsity of case set up by complainant

       regarding grant of loan of Rs.5 lakhs by him to the accused and his

       father­in­law in the month of January 2015 after procuring a sum

       of Rs.3 lakhs from his son by visiting abroad. It is the case of the

       complainant   that   the   accused   and   his   father­in­law   have

       approached him for the loan in the month of December 2014 and

       hence there would not have been any occasion for the complainant

       to bring the sum of Rs.3 lakhs from his son during his visit to US

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                             Page 24 of 30between 10.04.2014 to 05.08.2014 by informing his son that the

       same is required for giving loan to the accused and his father­in­

       law. The aforesaid plea of complainant is further falsified from the

       fact that the amount was allegedly brought by him from his son in

       US   dollars   and   the   complainant   has   failed   to   divulge   the

       information as to the intimation given by him to RBI in this regard

       and he could not even given the details as to how he had got the

       US currency converted into Indian currency after reaching India.25. During   his   further   cross   examination   dated   29.07.2016,   it   was

       deposed  by  the  complainant  that  the  remaining  amount  of   Rs.2

       lakhs was arranged by him from his relatives, however, he could

       not tell the name of the said relatives nor could he tell the details of

       exact   amount   arranged   by   him   from   his   relatives.   He   has   even

       admitted that he would not be able to tell the details even after

       checking his records. Admittedly, the loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs

       has not been reflected by complainant in his ITR which are Mark

       CW1/D1 collectively.26. Though in the complaint and his evidence by way of affidavit, the

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                  Page 25 of 30complainant has alleged that the accused has executed and handed

       over the cheque in question leaving the name and date as blank,

       during his cross examination dated 19.09.2016, complainant has

       admitted that the cheque was only signed by the accused when the

       same was allegedly handed over by the accused to the complainant

       and   the   complainant   had   got   the   same   filled   by   one   of   his

       neighbourer namely Pankaj Kalra before presentation of the same

       by him with his banker. On the contrary, CW­2 during his cross

       examination   dated   30.08.2017   has   deposed   that   the   cheque   in

       question was already filled in by the accused when the same was

       given by accused to the complainant in his presence. The aforesaid

       contradiction in the testimony of CW­1 and CW­2 renders the plea

       of complainant  regarding issuance of cheque in question by the

       accused   in   discharge   of   liability   towards   the   complainant

       reasonably doubtful.27. Thus, in view of  the aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion,

       accused   had   been   able   to   successfully   rebut   the   initial

       presumptions   arising   in   favour   of   the   complainant   regarding

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                 Page 26 of 30issuance   of   cheque   in   question   by   the   accused   in   discharge   of

       either his liability or the liability of his father­in­law.28. There can be no dispute about the prepositions of law laid down by

       Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in the judgments

       relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the complainant, however, in my

       considering   opinion,   in   view   of   the   peculiar   facts   and

       circumstances of the present case quoted herein above, the same

       are  not  of  any  assistance  to  the case  of   complainant.  It  is  well

       settled legal position that in a criminal case the facts of no two

       cases can be same and hence while applying the law of precedent,

       the   court   should   apply   the   legal   principles   laid   down   by   the

       superior courts on the facts of the case before it and should not be

       swayed by identity of one or few facts of the case in hand with the

       cases before the superior courts. In my considered opinion, none of

       the judgments relied upon by the complainant or for that matter by

       the accused lays down any preposition of law contrary to the legal

       principles quoted herein above in para no.20 of this judgment and

       on an application of the aforesaid legal principles on the peculiar

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                   Page 27 of 30facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered opinion, the

       accused has been able to rebut the presumptions arising in favour

       of complainant  underSection 118(a)and139of NI Act on the

       touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the complainant

       has   not   been   able   to   prove   its   case   underSection   138NI   Act

       against the accused for want of proof of liability of accused or his

       father­in­law   to   the   extent   of   the   cheque   amount   in   question

       towards the complainant beyond reasonable doubts.29. Reliance by the complainant on the document Ex.CW1/I as the

       proof of liability of accused towards the complainant to the extent

       of   cheque   amount   is   highly   misplaced   in   as   much   as,   the

       complainant has failed to prove the aforesaid document as per the

       applicable law of evidence. The aforesaid document seems to have

       been   addressed   by   the   complainant   to   SHO   PS   Sarojini   Nagar,

       however, complainant has failed to explain as to how he has come

       into possession of the aforesaid document. The complainant has

       also failed to produce the original of the said document. No steps

       for  summoning  of  the original have been  taken by complainant

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                     Page 28 of 30from PS Sarojini Nagar. Besides, as has already been observed, the

       complainant has failed to prove the source of funds worth Rs.5

       lakhs out of which the alleged loan was given by him to the father­

       in­law   of   the   accused.   In   fact,   during   his   cross   examination,

       complainant has tried to take an altogether new stand that the loan

       of Rs.5 lakhs was given by him to the accused and his father­in­

       law in equal proportion of Rs.2.5 lakhs each.30. Once   the   presumptions   arising   in   favour   of   complainant   underSection 118&139of NI Act are rebutted by the accused, it was

       incumbent  upon the complainant  to prove all the ingredients  of

       offence underSection 138of NI Act beyond reasonable doubts. In

       view of the fact that the accused has rebutted the presumptions by

       way of cross examination of CW­1 and CW­2, in my considered

       opinion, mere non­filing of any complaint by him regarding the

       theft of cheque in question would not be sufficient to discharge the

       onus   of   the   complainant,   which   shifted   to   the   complainant,   to

       prove that the cheque in question was issued by accused in favour

       of   the   complainant   in   discharge   of   liability   of   his   father­in­law

Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                                    Page 29 of 30towards   the   complainant.   Thus,   in   my   considered   opinion,

       complainant has failed to discharge the aforesaid onus lying upon

       him. The second question is thus answered in affirmative.31. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the accused is acquitted

       of charges underSection 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

       1881.32.Accused has already furnished bail bonds in sum of Rs.30,000/­

       each  in terms  of  provisions  of  Section 437­A ofCr.P.C.  which

       have been accepted today and shall remain in force for a period of

       six months from today.33.Ordered accordingly.Announced in the Open Court on this 3rd day of January 2018.
       This Judgment consists of 30 signed pages.(ARUN KUMAR GARG)
                            Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (NI Act)
                        (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi/03.01.2018




Chaman Lal Vs. Gaurav Vig
Judgment dated 03.01.2018Comp. Case No. 470033/16                                              Page 30 of 30