Delhi District Court16. In Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (2010)11 Scc 441, It Was ... on 4 March, 2020IN THE COURT OF SH. RINKU JAIN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,\n                  WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI\nCC NO: 15290/16\nU/s        138NI ActIn the matter of:\nSh. Satya Prakash,\nS/O late Sh. Jot Ram,\nR/O WZ-10, Village Assalat Pur\nA-2, Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.                                ..... Complainant\n                  V.\nSh. Ashok Kumar Taneja,\nS/o (Not Known),\nR/O RZ-T-44, 2nd Floor, Jain Colony, Part-I,\nUttam Nagar, New Delhi-110018,\nAlso At\nSh. Ashok Kumar Taneja,\nWorking in G.S.D. Work-Shop, Through: Dy. General Manager\nG.S.D Complex I.G.I, Airport, Tr.-II, New Delhi-110037.                          ..... Accused\n\n\nDATE OF INSTITUTION                                         :    27.05.2015\nDATE WHEN JUDGMENT RESERVED                                 :    11.12.2019\nDATE OF JUDGMENT                                            :    04.03.2020\nDECISION                                                    :    ACQUITTED\nBRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-\n      1.          Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the complainant as narrated in the\n           complaint is that he had friendly relations with the accused. In the month of June 2014\n           accused approached the complainant for a friendly of Rs. 8 lacs as accused was facing\n           financial crisis, for a period of three months. Owing to friendly relations, complainant on\n           06.06.2014 advanced a loan of Rs. 8 lacs to the accused to be repaid on 06.09.2014. On\n           06.09.2014 when complainant approached the accused for repayment of loan, accused paid\n           a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to complainant in cash and assured to repay the remaining loan by\n\n\n CC No. 15290/16       Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 1 out of 12\n       January 2015. In January 2015, accused repaid part loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the\n      complainant and further sought two months time to repay the balance amount of loan. On\n      28.02.2015, accused met the complainant and in discharge of his legal liability issued a\n      cheque bearing no. 570101 dated 03.03.2015 for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs drawn on SBI, Moti\n      Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "cheque in question") Ex CW1/A to the\n      complainant. Accused assured to repay the remaining Rs. 1 lac in April 2015. On\n      03.03.2015 complainant informed the accused about presentment of cheque in question to\n      which accused assured the complainant that the same would be duly honoured. The\n      complainant presented the cheque in question for encashment which to the utter shock of\n      the complainant, got dishonoured on presentation with remarks "Kindly contact drawer"\n      vide returning memo dated 05.03.2015 Ex.CW1/B. Thereafter, the complainant apprised\n      the accused about the dishonour of the cheque in question and on request of accused\n      complainant presented the same again and the cheque in question got dishonoured again\n      with remarks "Kindly contact drawer" vide cheque returning memo dated 25.03.2015\n      Ex.CW1/C. This constrained the complainant to send a legal demand notice dated\n      06.04.2015 Ex CW1/E to the accused. No heed was paid by the accused to the said legal\n      demand notice and as a result, the present complaint was filed by the complainant.\n\n\n      2.               Pre-summoning evidence was led, cognizance of the offenceu/s 138NI Act\n      was taken against the accused and summons were issued against accused. The accused\n      entered appearance, copy of complaint as well as of documents were supplied to the\n      accused. Subsequent to that noticeu/s. 251Cr.P.C for offenceu/s. 138N.I. Act was served\n      and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his plea of defence, recorded on\n      10.06.2015 accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. The defence of the\n      accused was that he alongwith complainant and one Sh. Jai Pal opened a shop dealing in\n      shoes in engage his son into business. He used to keep his blank signed cheques at the shop\n      to make payment for the goods received. Complainant took his cheque from the shop and\n      has misused the same. He denied the receipt of legal demand notice. He denied taking of\n      loan and his liability thereof. Thus, complainant led evidence to prove his case.\n\n\n      Evidence of the complainant\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja   page 2 out of 12\n       3.               Complainant examined only himself as CW1. He reiterated the facts of his\n      complaint in his evidence affidavit. He relied upon documents Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/I,\n      except Ex.CW1/D which was later on marked as Mark A. He was duly cross-examined by\n      the Ld. Counsel for accused.\n\n\n      4.               In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was into business of property\n      building since last thirty years. He carried on business without any name or any office for\n      the said business. He was an income tax assessee for the last twenty years. He maintained\n      three bank accounts. He knew the accused since last 8-10 years. Accused approached him\n      for loan on 01/02-June 2014 which was advanced him on 06.06.2014. He brought the\n      amount of money advanced to accused from his residence which was received regarding\n      his daughter divorced. He admitted that accused repaid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on\n      06.09.2014. When confronted with the Ex.CW1/D1 i.e. training schedule of accused at\n      Lucknow, according to which accused was in Lucknow, on a training on 06.09.2014,\n      complainant denied it to be incorrect. He categorically admitted that cheque in question\n      was given to him on 28.02.2015 which was handed over to him by accused himself. He\n      was confronted with passport and immigration certificate of accused Ex.CW1/D2 (colly\n      OSR) which shows that accused went to Singapore on 27.02.2015 and arrived there on\n      28.02.2015 and accused returned to Delhi on 04.03.2015 to which he deposed that the\n      cheque in question was given to him before going. He admitted that he informed the\n      accused telephonically on 03.03.2015 informing the accused about presentment of cheque\n      in question. The loan was given at his residence. The cheque in question was already filled\n      up when given to him. On 12.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 balance in his bank account was Rs.\n      1979/- and Rs. 2685/-. He was not doing any job. He failed to explain how "Salaried" was\n      mentioned in his passbook. The loan was given out of the alimony of his daughter I.e Rs.\n      15 lacs received in cash in the year 2013. He had filed another complaintu/s 138NI Act\n      against one more person. He knew Jai Pal Singh Chillar who was his nephew's friend from\n      last 10-12 years. Accused and Jai Pal Singh Chillar started a business after taking his shop\n      on rent. No rent agreement was executed regarding the said shop of which he was the\n      owner.\n      Defence of the accused\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja   page 3 out of 12\n       5.               The version of facts as discernible from the cross-examination of the\n      complainant, statement of accusedu/s 313Cr.P.C and the defence evidence is that the\n      accused started a business in partnership with complainant and one Jai Pal Singh Chillar.\n      His son and complainant's son used to run the business. Accused used to keep his blank\n      signed cheques to meet day to day expenses of the shop as he had to go out of station from\n      time to time. The cheque in question was obtained by the complainant from the said shop\n      and has been misused. One cheque of Jai Pal Singh Chillar was also missing.\n\n\n      6.            In his defence, accused chose to examine Sh. Jai Pal Singh as DW-1. In his\n      cross-examination DW-1 deposed that he deposed that he started a partnership business\n      with accused and son of complainant in the year 2014. Complainant was the landlord. In\n      the year 2015, all the partners suffered losses of Rs. 54,000/- each. He and accused had to\n      pay Rs. 54,000/- each to son of complainant namely Mohit Shokeen. He paid his share of\n      loss in 2015 and accused a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and only Rs. 14,000/- remained to be paid.\n      Complainant sold of goods lying in the shop and did not account for the same. Cheques of\n      all the three partners used to lie in the shop. In his cross examination DW-1 deposed that\n      accused works with Air India. Son of the accused used to look after the business on behalf\n      of accused. Sometimes he used to visit the shop for accounts. He was a contractor with\n      DDA and MCD. He introduced the complainant and accused with each other. He admitted\n      that there was no document regarding the settlement of losses of the partnership business.\n      Son of complainant collected Rs. 40,000/- from colleague of accused. He did not know the\n      residential address of accused at the time of partnership business. He had no personal\n      knowledge about the facts of the present case.\n\n\n      7.              The factual position being thus, the legal bench mark which is to be satisfied\n      in order to constitute an offenceu/s 138N. I. Act:\n              (a) That the accused issued cheque in favour of the payee/complainant on an\n              account maintained by him to discharge legal liability in whole or in part.\n              (b) That the cheque was presented within stipulated time by the complainant for\n              encashment.\n              (c) That the cheque was dishonoured on presentation because of the amount of\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 4 out of 12\n               money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or\n              that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement\n              made with the bank.\n              (d) That the demand for the payment of the said amount of money is made by\n              giving a legal demand notice within 30 days from the receipt of information from\n              the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.\n              (e) That the accused fails to make payment of the cheque amount to complainant\n              within 15 days, after receiving of the legal demand notice.\n\n\n      8.                Being cumulative, a person who had drawn the cheque is deemed to have\n      committed an offenceu/s 138N. I. Act when all the aforementioned ingredients are\n      satisfied.\n\n\n      9.                That Ld. Counsel for complainant argued the matter at length. Ld. defence\n      counsel also argued the matter in rebuttal. I have heard the submissions of both parties and\n      gone through the judicial file.\n\n\n      10.               On analysis of the facts and legal position stated above, the Court finds the\n      parties to be at variance on two of the primary issues i.e. whether the legal demand notice\n      was served upon the accused and whether part repayment of loan the cheque in question\n      was issued in favour of the complainant in order to discharge the part legal liability of the\n      accused of repayment of the loan of Rs.8 lacs taken by him.\n\n\nService of legal demand notice\n   11.                  The first defence of the accused is non service of legal notice. It is\n      contended on behalf of the accused that the accused did not receive the legal demand\n      notice and therefore the ingredients of the offence underSection 138NI Act are not\n      fulfilled and this would inexorably result in the acquittal of accused. However, this claim\n      of the accused for acquittal is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\n\n\n   12.                  In view of the authoritative Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16    Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 5 out of 12\n       Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhadmmed and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 555, the rigour of the\n      requirement of service of legal notice has been reduced to an almost vanishing point inSection 138NI Act jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the true\n      intent behind the service of legal demand notice as a precursor to the launch of prosecution\n      has quite categorically held that the service of summons of the court is opportunity enough\n      for the accused to pay the cheque amount and evade prosecution, any accused who fails to\n      pay the amount within 15 days of the service of summons, clearly cannot shield himself\n      behind the technical demand of non service of legal notice. The relevant extract of the\n      decision deserves to be quoted in extenso:-\n      ''17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear\n      departure from the rule of criminal law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice\n      before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by\n      post,   can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the\n      complaint underSection 138of Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submits to\n      the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a\n      copy of complaint with the summons)and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected.\n      A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court\n      alongwith the copy of the complaint underSection 138of the Act, cannot obviously\n      contend that there was no proper service of notice as required underSection 138, by\n      ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary underSection 27of the G.C.Act andSection 114of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso, would\n      defeat the very object of the legislation''.\n\n\n  13.                  Admittedly, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount within a period\n      of 15 days from the date of service of summons / of his appearance before this court.\n      Therefore, in view of the above stated Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the fact of\n      non service of legal demand notice will not come to aid the accused and therefore, the\n      accused cannot claim acquittal on this ground.\n\n\n  14.                  The non service of legal notice challenge having been met, let us now turn\n      to the core issue in this case and examine ''whether the cheque in question can be said to\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja   page 6 out of 12\n       have been issued in discharge of legal liability or not''.\n\n\n      Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability\n      15.              It has been admitted by the accused that the cheque in question was drawn\n      by him upon the bank account maintained in the name of accused firm and having signed\n      the same. Once these foundational facts are admitted and a factual base is established,\n      presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt and\n      drawn for lawful consideration arises by virtue ofSection 118 (a)andSection 139of N. I.\n      Act.   It is a mandatory presumption though the accused is entitled to rebut the said\n      presumption. In a catena of judgements, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme\n      Court that such presumption in favour of the complainant cannot be rebutted by a mere\n      plausible explanation but more than a plausible explanation is required.\n\n\n      16.              In Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan (2010)11 SCC 441, it was observed thatSection\n      139of N.I. Act is stated to be an example of a reverse onus clause which is in tune with the\n      legislator intend of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments.Section 138of N.\n      I. Act provides for speedy remedy in a criminal forum, in relation to dishonour of cheques.\n\n\n      17.              In case of Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets,(2009) 2 SCC 513, the\n      Hon'ble Supreme Court had held:-\n      'The accused underSection 138NI Act has two options. He can either show that the\n      consideration and debt did not exit or that under the particular circumstances of the case,\n      the non existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to\n      suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumption, an\n      accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as it is expected of\n      the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that\n      the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or\n      liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the\n      accused should disprove the non existence of consideration and debt by leading direct\n      evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated.\n      At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja      page 7 out of 12\n       existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which\n      his probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the\n      complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts\n      and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the\n      consideration and debt did not exist or there non existence was so probably that a prudent\n      man under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart\n      from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question, was not supported by\n      consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely\n      upon the circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are so\n      compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on the complainant. The accused may also\n      rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned inSection 114of the\n      Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arises underSection 118and139of NI Act''.\n\n\n      18.              According to the scheme ofN. I. Act, on proof of foundational facts, a\n      presumption arises as to the cheque having been issued in discharge of the legal liability\n      and the burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption. This clearly is an instance\n      of the rule of "reverse onus" in action where it is incumbent on the accused to lead what\n      can be called as "negative evidence". The evidence of a character, not to prove a fact\n      affirmative, but to lead evidence to show non-existence of a liability. Keeping in view, this\n      is a departure from the cardinal rule of "presumption of innocence" in favour of the\n      accused, keeping in mind that the negative evidence is not easy to be led by its very nature.\n      It is now clearly settled that the accused can reverse this presumption on a scale of\n      preponderance of probabilities.        Lack of legally enforceable debt in favour of the\n      complainant need not be proved to the hilt beyond all reasonable doubts. Preponderance is\n      superiority in weight. Preponderance of probabilities means more probable than not and\n      superior in evidentiary weight than the opposite.\n\n\n      19.              So far as the facts of liability is concerned, in view of mandatory\n      presumption of law as discussed above, if any cheque has been produced by the\n      complainant bearing the signatures of the accused, there cannot be any inherent lacuna in\n      the existence of the liability. But then definitely, accused can point loop holes in the story\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 8 out of 12\n       of the complainant by impeaching the credit of the witness during his cross-examination.\n      The accused can discharge his burden by demonstrating the preponderance of probabilities\n      coming in its way.\n\n\n      20.              In the present case, the complainant examined only himself as the sole\n      complainant witness and to raise the presumption of cheque having been issued in\n      discharge of legally recoverable debt and drawn for lawful consideration arising by virtue\n      ofSection 118 (a)andSection 139of N. I. Act, the testimony of the witness must be of\n      such a character as to be believed as gospel truth.\n\n\n      21.              In the case in hand, the defence of the complainant is that he never took any\n      loan from the complainant and the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant\n      and therefore the story of advancement of friendly loan is a complete lie. It has been\n      argued on behalf of accused that complainant in his cross-examination has made certain\n      admissions which itself shows the falsity of case of complainant and they probablises the\n      defence set up by the accused. This court is in concurrence with the submissions advanced\n      on behalf of accused as the bare analysis of the cross-examination of the complainant\n      clearly shows that there are inherent inconsistencies in the deposition of the complainant.\n      Complainant in his complaint, evidence affidavit as well as in his cross examination\n      testified that the cheque in question was handed over to him by the accused when\n      complainant met the accused on 28.02.2015. However, during the cross examination of the\n      complainant he has confronted with the copy of passport of accused and immigration\n      certificate Ex.CW1/D2(colly OSR) vide which accused tried to prove the fact that on\n      28.02.2015 i.e. alleged date of handing over the cheque in question by the accused to the\n      complainant, he was not in India. Complainant gave an evasive answer to the same.\n      Accused has taken the plea of alibi. A mere perusal of Ex.CW1/D2 shows that passport of\n      accused bears a departure entry having stamp of immigration dated 27.02.2015 of Delhi\n      and arrival entry having stamp of immigration dated 28.02.2015 at Singapore. The same\n      also shows the departure entry bearing stamp of immigration dated 04.03.2015 from\n      Singapore. Thus, this clearly shows that the accused was not in India from 27.02.2015 till\n      04.03.2015. Complainant has failed to elicit any explanation to the same or rebutt the fact\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 9 out of 12\n       of accused being not present in India for the said dates. Not even an iota of evidence has\n      been led by the complainant to prove and corroborate his assertion that the cheque in\n      question was handed over to him by the accused personally on 28.02.2015.\n\n\n      22.            Complainant in his complaint, evidence affidavit as well as cross-examination\n      alleges that accused came to him on 06.09.2014 and repaid a part of loan I.e Rs. 30,000/-.\n      During his cross-examination when he was confronted with Ex.CW1/D1 i.e. the training\n      schedule of accused dated 21.08.2014 according to which accused attended a twenty days\n      training in Lucknow from 25.08.2014 to 13.09.2014, he did not give any explanation and\n      answer the question in negative. The document Ex.CW1/D1 suggests that accused was not\n      present in Delhi from 25.08.2014 to 13.09.2014 and therefore the claim of complainant that\n      accused repaid a part of loan i.e. Rs. 30,000/- on 06.09.2014 also appears to be a complete\n      lie.\n\n\n      23.              Therefore in the light of above discussion, the theory of handing over of the\n      loan and giving of cheque in question by the accused to the complainant for repayment of\n      the said loan does not inspire the confidence of this court. The testimony of complainant is\n      contradictory to the version of the accused which accused has proved to preponderance of\n      probabilities. The contradictions in the version of the complainant cannot be termed as\n      mere mistakes but these are material contradictions which shake the veracity of the\n      complainant so much so that it goes to the roots of the complainant's evidence and his case,\n      therefore the version of the complainant is unworthy of credence.\n\n\n      24.              It is a settled position of the law that the case of the complainant should\n      stand on its own legs. It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence, nor can the\n      court, on its own make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that\n      basis. If defence version is incorrect, it does not mean that the prosecution version is\n      necessarily correct. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant\n      regarding the deep defence of the accused appears to be of no use in sailing through the\n      case of the complainant.\n\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 10 out of 12\n       25.          The Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment titled as "The Hon'ble Apex\n      Court in the epic Judgment passed in the case titled as 'Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs State of\n      Maharasthra' (1984) 4 SCC 116, while discussing the principles of appreciation of\n      prosecution and defence evidence, has held that-\n      ''It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot\n      derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law. However, where\n      various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or false defence may\n      be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court. In other words, before using the\n      additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not\n      suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the\n      prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which\n      is not accepted by a court''.\n\n\n      26.         It is all more significant that presumption can only be raised in furtherance of\n      prosecution case and not in derogation of the same. The three judge bench of Hon'ble\n      Supreme Court in a case dealing with prevention ofCorruption Acthas observed in respect\n      of presumption of law in ''Trilok Chand Jain vs State of Delhi', 1977 AIR 666 as under:-\n      'The presumption therefore, can be used in furtherance of the prosecution case and not in\n      derogation of it. If the story set up by the prosecution inherently militates against or is\n      inconsistent with the fact presumed, the presumption will be rendered sterile from its\n      inception''.\n\n\n      27.               Thus, in view of the totality of the circumstance and the settled legal\n      positions as discussed above, the case attempted to be built by the complainant, appears to\n      be suffering from fatal infirmities so much so, it goes directly to the root of the case and\n      shakes the very edifice on which the case of the complainant rests. It is also relevant to\n      mention here that it is of paramount importance to demand evidence of unambiguous,\n      impeccable and of unimpeachable in nature so as to entail criminal conviction of the\n      accused and which the complainant has failed to bring.\n\n\n      28.               In the case of 'Kulvinder Singh vs Kafeel Ahmad'', Crl L. P. 478 of 2011,\n\n\n\nCC No. 15290/16    Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja   page 11 out of 12\n        decided on 04.01.2013,Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the basic principle in\n       criminal law is that the guilt of the accused / respondent, must be proved beyondreasonable doubts and if there is any slightest doubt about the commission of an offence,\n       then the benefit has to accrue to him.29.              At the same time, it is important to underscore the established canon of\n       criminal law that in order to pass a conviction in a criminal case, the accused ''must be''\n       guilty and not merely ''may be'' guilty. The mental distance between ''may be'' guilty to\n       ''must be'' guilty is a long one and must be travel not on surmises and conjectures, but by\n       cogent evidence. In this case, after the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of\n       consideration by raising a doubt on the very factum of the loan. The accused has clearly\n       presented a case which is superior in way. And as per the settled law, this is all that what is\n       required, as preponderance of probabilities is not a rigorous standard of proof, but only so\n       much evidence as makes the court lean in, in favour of one side and not the other.\n       Consequently, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The material on record does not\n       suggest that the accused ''must be'' guilty whichever way one looks at it.30.               In view of the above discussions, the present case appears to be a fit case\n       where benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. Accordingly, in view of the above\n       discussions, this court hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case. The accused\n       has been able to rebut presumption underSection 118and139NI Act arising in favour of\n       the complainant.31.              Thus in view of aforementioned analysis of evidence, considerations and\n       discussion the accused Ashok Kumar Taneja has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of\n       legal liability and the complainant has failed to prove the same affirmatively. As a result,\n       the accused Ashok Kumar Taneja is acquitted for offence undersection 138NI Act 1881.\nAnnounced in open Court\non this day of 04.03.2020\n                                                               (Rinku Jain)\n                                                      MM NIAct-02(West)/THC, Delhi\n\n\n\n CC No. 15290/16   Satya Prakash   V.   Ashok Kumar Taneja    page 12 out of 12