Delhi District Court
Ms Bebb India Pvt Ltd vs Ms Pratik Enterprises on 22 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Complaint No.:4993649/2016
Bebb India Pvt Ltd. ......... Complainant
Versus
M/s Pratik Enterprises ......... Accused
1. Name & address of the complainant : Bebb India Pvt. Ltd.
Office at 1B, Vikrant Enclave,
Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
2. Name & address of the accused : M/s Pratik Enterprises
Mr. Chintan Shah(Authorised
Signatory of Pratik Enterprises)
R/o 408/A, Spectrum Comm.
Centre, Near Relief Cinema,
Relief Road,
Ahmedabad-380001
3. Offence complained of : U/S 138, The Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881.
4. Date of Institution of case : 02.01.2016
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Acquitted
7. Date of decision of the case : 22.07.2025
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 1/16
Digitally signed
DIVYA by DIVYA
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.22
15:41:38 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case as
filed by the complainant, Bebb India Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
complainant) against accused, Pratik Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as
the accused no. 1), Chintan Shah (hereinafter referred to as the accused no.
2). The present complaint has been filed against the accused u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. The brief facts as alleged by the complainant company in the complaint are
that complainant has been carrying business of sales, supply chain,
marketing, finance, human resources IT etc and accused no. 2 being the
proprietor of accused no. 1 negotiated with the complainant on various
occasion for supply PP H 110 MA by the complainant company and the
accused admitted its liability and toward the repayment issued the cheque
bearing no. 915606 dated 18.04.2015 for a sum of Rs. 29,03,572/- drawn on
Deutsche bank Tekra, Ahmedabad-380006(cheque in question) to discharge
his liability towards the loan which included interest, overdue charges and
bounce charges etc.
3. When the complainant presented the cheque in question to his banker IDBI
Bank, the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant vide
cheque returning memo dated 25.04.2025 with the remarks “funds
insufficient”.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 2/16
DIVYA Digitally signed
by DIVYA SINGH
Date: 2025.07.22
SINGH 15:41:46 +0530
4. Thereafter, complainant served a Legal Demand Notice dated 07.05.2015
upon the accused through speed post asking accused to repay the loan
amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the
complainant filed the present complaint case with the submission that
accused person be summoned, tried and punished according to law.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant in the pre-summoning evidence,
examined himself as CW1 by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/1 and relied upon
following documents which are as follows:
a) Copy of Board resolution is Ex. CW1/A;
b) Original Cheque Ex. CW1/B;
c) returning memo Ex. CW1/C;
d) copy of Legal Notice Ex. CW1/D;
e) Receipt of postal department is Ex. CW1/E;
f) Copy of delivery report is Ex.CW1/F; and
g) Copy of purchase order/invoices is Mark CW1/G(colly)
6. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence and upon finding prima facie
case against both the accused persons, the accused persons were summoned
for an offence punishable under section 138 NI Act. Thereafter Notice u/s
251 Cr.PC was framed against the accused on 27.09.2025 to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He denied receiving the legal demand
notice.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 3/16
DIVYA Digitally signed
by DIVYA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.07.22
15:41:51 +0530
7. Thereafter, CW-1 examined, cross-examined on 09.08.2023, 08.07.2024 &
25.11.2024 and discharged and matter was listed for statement of accused
u/s 313 Cr.PC.
8. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 11.12.2024, wherein
all the incriminating circumstances which were against the accused.
9. Thereafter, on 25.04.2025, accused closed his DE vide separate statement
and matter was fixed for final arguments.
10.Final arguments were heard at length from both the parties, the evidence led
by the parties carefully considered and record thoroughly perused.
11.Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the
basic provision of Section 138 of NI Act,1881. In order to ascertain whether
accused has committed offence u/s 138 NI Act the following ingredients
have to be proved which are as follows:
A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by
him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another
person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally
enforceable debt or liability;
cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three
months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of
its validity whichever is earlier;
That cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, either because
of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made
with the bank;
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 4/16
DIVYA Digitally signed
by DIVYA SINGHSINGH Date: 2025.07.22
15:41:56 +0530
The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has made a
demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of
the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid; andThe drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said
amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said noticeAnalysis
12.In the present case, accused has admitted his signatures on the
cheque in question, in answer to notice u/s 251 Cr. P.C and in
his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Further the presentation of the
cheque in question for encashment and dishonorment of the
cheque for the reason “funds insufficient” is not in dispute, as it
is a matter of record proved by return memo dated 25.04.2015
Ex. CW1/C. Therefore, it is a matter of record that cheque in
question dated 18.04.2015 Ex. CW1/B was presented within its
validity period and dishonored by the bank of accused. Further,
it is also not in dispute that impugned cheque was issued by the
accused and was drawn on his bank account.
13.Reference can be made to Judgment of Apex Court in
Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898,that, “Once the cheque
relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits
the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as
contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant.”
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 5/16
Digitally signed
DIVYA by DIVYA
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.22
15:42:01 +0530
14.Thus, as per the scheme of the Act, on proof of the foundational
facts, a presumption arises as to the cheque having been issued
in discharge of a legal liability, and the burden of proof lies
upon the accused to rebut the said presumption. This clearly is
an instance of the rule of ‘reverse onus’ in action, where it is
incumbent on the accused to lead what can be called ‘negative
evidence’. It has been held in M/s. Kumar Exports v. M/s.
Sharma Carpets, [2009 A.I.R. (SC) 1518] that the accused may
rebut these presumptions by leading direct evidence and in
some exceptional cases, from the case set out by the
complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case
set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the
complainant during the trial.
15. In relation to the legal demand notice, accused stated both when
notice u/s 251 Cr.PC and statement u/s 313 Cr.PC were
recorded that he did not receive any legal notice. The plea of
non-receipt of legal notice does not aid the accused. At this
juncture, this Court seeks guidance from the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alavi Haji v.
Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 wherein it has been
held that , where the notice is sent by Registered post by
correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory
requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso
to section 138 Act stands complied with.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 6/16
Digitally signed
DIVYA by DIVYA
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.22
15:42:06 +0530
16.The plea of non-receipt of legal notice by the accused is not
tenable and, accused can be said to have good notice of the
present complaint. Accused has failed to adduce any evidence
to rebut the presumption of due service. Despite receipt of
summons from the court accused failed to pay the amount of
the cheque in question to the complainant, thus implying the
satisfaction of the fourth condition.
17.Following the above, the only question remaining for
determination is whether a legally valid and enforceable debt
existed qua the complainant and whether the cheque in question
was issued by the accused/drawer in discharge of said
liability/debt. Further, it is settled position that when an accused
has to rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act, the standard of
proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities.
18.In the present matter, the accused has admitted that he had
business dealings with the complainant in his notice framed
under section 251 Crpc and statement recorded under section
313 Crpc. Further, the complainant in his complaint has stated
that M/s Pratik Enterprise and accused Mr Chintan Shah being
the authorised signatory of the M/S Pratik Enterprise negotiated
with the complainant for a business transaction and towards the
repayment of his admitted liability amount issued a cheque
amounting to rupees 29,03,572/- which was dishonoured for the
reason “funds insufficient”. In support of his case, the
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 7/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:42:15
+0530
complainant examined its authorised representative as CW1,
who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. CW1/1 and relied
upon several documents including board resolution Ex. CW1/A,
cheque Ex. CW1/B, return memo Ex. CW1/C, legal notice Ex.
CW1/D, postal receipt Ex. CW1/E, delivery report Ex. CW1/F,
copy of purchase orders/invoices Mark CW1/G (colly), and
also, the ledger account of the accused maintained by the
complainant, which is exhibited as Ex. CW1/H.
19.First defence taken by the accused is that the cheque in question
was issued to the complainant for the purpose of security.
20.Before, evaluating the claim of the accused let us understand
the position with regard to the security cheque as settled by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Chand Goyal vs Amit
Sighal;
“The contention that the cheque was issued only as security is
preposterous. The cheque whether issued for payment of debt or as
security makes no distinction in law. The cheque is a negotiable
instrument, it may be that sometimes the cheque is issued with a
request on the part of the drawer to defer the presentation of the
cheque for some time to enable the drawer to make payment by
cash and take back the cheque or allow time to arrange funds for
encashment of cheque. When the amount is not paid as per oral
understanding the payee is well justified to present the cheque for
encashment. The cheque even if it is issued as a security for
payment, it is negotiable instrument and encash able security at the
hands of payee. Therefore, merely because the drawer contends
that it is issued as security is not a ground to exonerate the penal
liability under Sec.138 of the NI Act”
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 8/16
Digitally signed
by DIVYA
DIVYA SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:42:22
+0530
21.Therefore, the defence of the accused that cheque in question
was issued as security cheque has no force. Also, for proving
the fact that the cheque in question was given by the accused in
a blank signed cheque manner for the purpose of security to the
complainant, accused has not brought on record any material or
record that the same was submitted as security.
22.Another major defence taken by the accused is that the Ledger
account exhibit CW 1/H shows lesser amount than that
mentioned on the cheque in question, hence accused cannot be
made liable as the liability of the accused is not clear. Further,
there is no mention in the complaint, evidence affidavit or legal
notice as to how the liability or the cheque amount is calculated
by the complainant. Perusal of the said ledger reveals that the
closing balance as on 31.03.2015 is only ₹28,56,525/-, whereas
the cheque amount is ₹29,03,572/-, indicating an unexplained
discrepancy. No supplementary document, invoice, credit/debit
note, or any communication has been placed on record to
explain this difference or to establish how the figure of
₹29,03,572/- was calculated. No calculation has been given or
provided during the entire course of trial as to how, and on what
basis the liability to the tune of cheque amount has been
calculated.
23.It is a settled proposition of law that presumption under Section
139 of the NI Act is a rebuttable presumption standard of proofCC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 9/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:42:28
+0530
being that of preponderance of probabilities and accused has
raised a probable defence and now the burden has shifted upon
the complainant.
24.During the course of final arguments, learned counsel for the
complainant submitted that an amount of ₹50,000/- was added
subsequently by the company to “evade tax implications.”
However, such a submission remains a mere averment
unsupported by any document or admission by the accused and
cannot be accepted in absence of cogent evidence and will not
discharge the burden shifted on the complainant.
25.In the present case, the accused has successfully cast doubt on
the complainant’s claim by pointing out the discrepancies. The
complainant, in turn, has failed to produce any document,
computation as to how the liability of Rs. 29,03,572/- was
calculated. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the complainant
has failed to discharge the burden which shifted back upon the
complainant after the accused raised a probable defence.
26.Further, the complainant had filed a series of email
communications between the parties, which, although not
exhibited, were produced in court. The emails reveals that the
amount repeatedly referred to and demanded therein by the
complainant is ₹28,56,525/- and not ₹29,03,572/-, which is the
amount of the cheque in question. Even during the final
arguments, the complainant has not pointed out as to whether
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 10/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:42:36
+0530
the amount of ₹29,03,572/- is due and payable by the accused
and is actually claimed by the complainant.
27.The complainant has also placed reliance on several judgements
to support his case. Same are as follows: Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Satyendra Jain v. Omway Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,
CS (OS) 47/2011, wherein it is held in Para 14 that:
“The pleadings and transactions of commercial persons cannot be
viewed on the same principles as applicable to transactions
between family members or laypersons. A commercial/ business
person who has signed documents and issued cheques in
pursuance thereto cannot be lightly allowed to shake off the effect
of such documents. We are here dealing with villagers but with
astute, street smart, hard-nosed, shrewd businessmen. Courts
cannot be blind to the prevalent business practices and
environment and cannot afford to continue to decide modern day
transactions on ancient principles/ precedents.
28.Complainant has further relied upon the case Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka titled Dr. K.G.Ramachandra Gupta and Anr.
Versus Dr. G. Adinarayana 2000(3) Kar LJ 481 : Para 20….
Regarding the defence taken by the accused that the above said
cheques were not issued by him, for repayment of the loan
amount, but, they were blank cheques issued by him, enabling the
complainant to avail cheque discount facility, the accused has not
adduced any evidence in support of the said contention and he has
not chosen to send any reply to the legal notices issued by the
complainant which were served on him in all these cases denying
the facts alleged in the said notices that the said cheques were
issued for the above said amounts towards repayment of the loans
taken by him under the pronotes executed by him, the details of
which are given in the said notice……
………. It cannot, therefore, be said that the accused has denied the
execution of the pronotes produced in all these cases. So, the
presumption is available under Section 118 of the Act in favour of
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 11/16
Digitally signed
DIVYA by DIVYA
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.22
15:42:44 +0530
the complainants that all the pronotes produced are supported by
consideration. ”
29.Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court titled Hiten P. Dalal Versus Bratindranath Banerjee
2001(2) ACR 1492 SC wherein it is held :
“Para 33.. As far as the appellant’s defence was concerned, he did
not enter the witness box to support his case that the four cheques
in particular had been given in respect of any arrangement or in
respect of any transactions, which did not materialize.
Para 36 :…………. The appellant alone could have said why he had
admittedly executed the four cheques, handed them over to the
Bank and never asked for their return. He did not choose to do
so.”
30.Reliance was placed on the judgment titled General Auto Sales
v/s Vijay Laxmi, wherein Hon’ble Kerala High Court has
observed that “Even if a blank cheque has been given towards
liability or even a security, when the liability is assessed and
quantified, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank,
the person who had drawn the cheque cannat co criminal
liability arising out of section 138 of N.I. Act.”
31.Reliance was further placed on the judgment titled as “Jaipal
Singh Rana Vs. Swara) Pat (2008) DLT 882, where it is held
that there is no altercation in a cheque if the amount and o date
are filled by somebody else apart from the signatory of the
cheque, It is also held to there is no law that requires the filling
up of entire cheque by the drawer himself.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 12/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:42:51
+0530
32.Reliance is placed on the judgment titled as “Ravi Chopra Vs.
State & Anrs.” 2008 (2) LRC 118 (Del), wherein, it is held that
“if a blank signed cheque is given then it is possible that the
drawer has consented impliedly or expressly to filling up of the
cheque by the payee on a later date”.
33.Reliance was further placed on the judgment titled as Vijender
Singh Vs. Eicher Motors Limited & Anr.“, wherein it is held
that any person who issues blank signed cheque should
understand the consequences of doing so.”
34.Judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in
Lillykutty v. Lawrance 2003 (20) DCR 610 in the following
words:
In the instant case, signature is admitted. According to the drawer
of the cheque, amount and the name has been written not by the
drawer but by somebody else or by the payee and tried to get it
encashed. We are of the view, by putting the amount and the name
there is not material alteration on the cheque under Section 87 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act. In fact, there is no alteration but
only adding the amount and the date. There is no rule in banking
business that payee’s name as well as the amount should be written
by drawer himself. In the instant case Bank has never found that
the cheque was tempered with or forged or there is material
alteration or that the handwriting by which the payee’s name and
the amount was written was differed. The Bank was willing to
honour the cheques if sufficient funds were there in the account of
the drawer even if the payee’s name and the amount was written by
somebody else other than the holder of the account or the drawer
of the cheque. The mere fact that the payee’s name and the amount
shown are not in the handwriting of the drawer does not invalidate
the cheque. No law provides in the case of cheques the entire body
has to be written by the drawer only. What is material is the
signature of the drawer and not the body of the instrument.
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 13/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:42:58
+0530
Therefore when the drawer has issued the cheque whether the
entire body was written by the drawer written beyond the
instructions of the drawer, whether the amount is due or not, those
and such matters are defenses which drawer has to raise and prove
it.
Therefore, the mere fact that the payee’s name and the amount
shown in the cheque are in different handwriting is not a reasons
for not honoring the cheque by the Bank. Banks would normally
see whether the instrument is that of the drawer and the cheque has
been signed by the drawer himself. The burden is therefore
entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the date,
amount and the payee’s name are written by somebody else
without the knowledge and consent of the drawer.”
35.Complainant has relied on the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop
Lal Jindal and Ors., “once the cheque has been issued and the
same has been presented and upon its dishonor, the procedure
prescribed for issuance of the notice had been followed, the
presumption u/s 139 NI Act arises immediately.”
36.Complainant has relied on the case of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi titled ” Satyendra Jain Versus M/s Omway Buildestate
Pvt Ltd. And Ors. CS (OS) 47/2011 wherein it is held in Para
14 that:
“The pleadings and transactions of commercial persons cannot be
viewed on the same principles as applicable to transactions
between family members or laypersons. A commercial/ business
person who has signed documents and issued cheques in
pursuance thereto cannot be lightly allowed to shake off the effect
of such documents. We are here not dealing with villagers but
with astute, street smart, hard-nosed, shrewd businessmen. The
Courts cannot be blind to the prevalent business practices and
environment and cannot afford to continue to decide modern day
transactions on ancient principles/ precedents.”
CC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 14/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:43:05
+0530
37.While these judgments outline clear legal principles regarding
presumptions under the NI Act, it is also a settled law that the
presumption under NI Act is a rebuttable presumption. The
accused has to rebut the presumption in favour of the
complainant by raising a probable defence and the standard of
proof is only ‘preponderance of probabilities’. In the present
case, the defense has raised significant doubts about the
existence and amount of the legally enforceable liability. As
already discussed above, the complainant did not explain how
they arrived at the cheque amount of ₹29,03,572/-.
38.The accused has thus been able to sufficiently rebut the
presumption of Section139/Section 118 of the NI Act. It is a
well settled principle of law that prosecution has to stand on its
own leg and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also held
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rahul Builders vs.
Arihant Fertilizers and Chemicals and Anr. (2008) 2SCC 321,
NI Act envisages application of the similar provisions which
needs to be construed strictly. Also, even if two views in the
matter are possible, the court should lean in favour of the view
which is beneficial to the accused.
39.Therefore, in the present case the benefit of doubt must go to
the accused. Complainant has not been able to prove his case
and there are some serious lacuna in the story of the
complainant. Moreover, the presumption of law which is to beCC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 15/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:43:11
+0530
drawn in favour of drawee, namely the complainant that the
cheque has been issued for the valid discharge of his debt, get
dislodged by a plausible explanation furnished by the accused.
40.In light of above facts and circumstances, the accused has
probablized his defence by exposing gaping holes in the case of
complainant. Complainant was not able to justify as to how the
cheque amount was arrived at. Therefore, this court is of the
opinion that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque had
been issued in discharge of any legal debt or other liability. The
accused has been able to rebut the presumption in favour of the
complainant as the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on
the part of the accused is only ‘preponderance of probabilities’.
41.Accordingly, Both the accused no. 1 M/s Pratik Enterprises &
accused no. 2 Sh. Chintan Shah is acquitted of the offence
punishable u/s 138 NI Act with respect to the cheque in
question.
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.22
15:43:17
+0530Announced in the open court on Divya Singh
22.07.2025 JMFC-NI Act-03,
South West District
Dwarka Courts, DelhiCC No. 4993649/2016 Bebb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pratik Enterprises 16/16
