Sh. Ramesh Chander Sibal v. Sh. Subodh Singh
The present case we represented Sh. S. Singh and Smt. R. Singh (accused) against whom a complaint was filed by Sh. Ramesh Chander Sibal (complainant) under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque for Rs.80,50,000/- drawn on Axis Bank The complainant Sh. Ramesh Chander Sibal gave a friendly loan of Rs. 80,50,000/- to Sh. Subodh Singh and Smt. Rajani Singh as there was an urgent financial need of the accused persons and In discharge of their legally enforceable liability the accused persons issued a cheque to the complainant of Rs. 80,50,000/ The complainant deposited the aforesaid cheque with his banker but the cheque was returned back dishonored vide bank return memo dated 28.06.2016 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”.
The complainant sent legal notice on 13.07.2016 to the accused persons and the accused persons failed to comply with the requirement of the notice within the period of 15 days from date of service of notice and hence, the present case was filed. After taking pre-summoning evidence, the Court took cognizance of the offence under section 138 NI Act and against the accused.
Our law firm represented the accused before the Hon’ble Court and pleaded that they ( accused) had given two signed cheques to the complainant as there was a property deal between the complainant and father of accused no. 1 and husband of accused no. 2 namely Mohan Singh for which Rs. 50 lakhs was given by the complainant as token money to Mohan Singh, no loan was taken by the accused persons from the complainant
We argued that the complainant, a property dealer, was involved in a property deal with Mohan Singh (father/husband of the accused). As part of this, the complainant paid ₹50 lakhs as token money. However later on the deal was not materialized due to some litigation on the property. The complainant asked for retun of token money however token money was usually not retune but under the pressure we accuse gave the complainant two blank signed cheques. We claim the complainant misused these cheques by filling in names and amounts to falsely allege a loan of ₹80.5 lakhs, which we deny ever taking
In the defence we argued that no Rs. 80.5 lakh loan was taken from the complainant. They claimed the cheque was issued for Rs. 50 lakh owed by Mohan Singh and was misused by the complainant.
The Court observed that the key issue in this case is whether the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. This section states that dishonoring a cheque due to insufficient funds or exceeding the account limit constitutes an offense, punishable by imprisonment up to two years, a fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both.
We (accused) have admitted that Mohan Singh owed ₹50 lakhs to the complainant and that two cheques were issued for this amount. However, the cheque in question is for ₹80.5 lakhs, and the admission regarding ₹50 lakhs does not support the complainant’s claim for the higher amount. The complainant’s case is inconsistent and unreliable, with several weaknesses. We successfully raised a reasonable doubt and presented a plausible defence, undermining the complainant’s case.
The Court recognizes that the burden of proof on the accused in a Section 138 NI Act complaint is to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant based on a preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the accused have raised a plausible defence: that the ₹80.5 lakh loan may not have been taken from the complainant, and the cheque could have been issued for a different liability related to Mohan Singh. This reasonable doubt raised by the accused is enough to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act. As the judgement come in our favour, I would summarize the judgment as follows:
The Court, after considering all the facts and arguments, has concluded that the accused have successfully raised a probable defence and rebutted the presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act. The complainant, on the other hand, failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the Court acquitted the accused, S. Singh and R. Singh, of the charges under Section 138 of the NI Act, cancelled their bail bonds, discharged their sureties, and removed any endorsements related to the case.