Delhi District Court
Om Prakash Taparia vs Real Life Plastics Pvt Ltd on 23 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
NI ACT-04, DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Presided over by: Sh. Danveer
CC No.: 521456/16 (Earlier: 651/1/2012)
Unique Case ID No.: DLCT020014392012
In the matter of:
Sh. Om Prakash Taparia,
S/o Late Sh. T.M. Taparia,
R/o 3948, 3rd Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006.
...Complainant
Versus
1. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd.,
2. Sh. Rohit Mahajan, Managing Director, Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd.,
3. Smt. Seema Mahajan, Director, Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd.,
4. Sh. Dinesh Chandra Gupta, Director, Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd.,
All at: B-44, Phase II, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi-110034.
...Accused Persons
Date of institution 20.07.2012
Offence complained Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Plea of Accused (Guilty/Not guilty) Not guilty
Date of filing 09.07.2012
Date of decision 23.02.2026
Method of trial Summons
Final order (Conviction/Acquittal) Acquittal
Offences proved (if any) -
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -1-
TABLE OF INDEX
Table of Contents
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE .......................................................................................................................... - 2 -
TABLE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD ............................................................................................................... - 4 -
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE.......................................................................................................................... - 5 -
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED ........................................................................................................................... - 5 -
DEFENCE EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................................... - 6 -
FINAL ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................................... - 6 -
LAW ON THE POINT ................................................................................................................................... - 8 -
INGREDIENT(S) IN DISPUTE ...................................................................................................................... - 10 -
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 1 ................................................................................................................... - 11 -
Law on existence of legally enforceable debt/other liability.. ............................................................... - 11 -
Examina;on of facts of the present case.. ............................................................................................ - 13 -
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 2 ................................................................................................................... - 18 -
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 3 ................................................................................................................... - 18 -
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 4 ................................................................................................................... - 18 -
FINAL DECISION ....................................................................................................................................... - 19 -
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Accused no. 1 is a private limited company, of which, accused no. 2 to 4
are stated to be the directors. As per the complainant, accused no. 2 was
the Managing Director of the accused no. 1 company at the relevant time
of commission of offence, and accused nos. 3 and 4 were the directors of
the accused no. 1 company at that time.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -2-
2. The version of the complainant is that the complainant had friendly
relations with accused no. 4 and on his request, the complainant advanced
a friendly loan of Rs. 300,000/- to accused no. 1 company. Further, that the
said loan was advanced on the assurances of accused no. 2 to 4 about its
repayment on demand or before November, 2011. The case of the
complainant is that on demand, the accused persons returned a sum of Rs.
33,000/- by cash and for the remaining amount, they issued a cheque drawn
on the account of accused no. 1 company. The said cheque is cheque
bearing no. 048542, dated 25.11.2011, in the sum of Rs. 267,000/- drawn
on Axis Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘cheque-in-question’). It
is stated by the complainant that they presented the said cheque-in-question
for encashment multiple times within the stipulated period of its validity,
but the same got dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’ on every
presentation. Then, the complainant claims to have served a legal notice on
the accused persons calling on them to pay their liability, and that within
15 days of the receipt / deemed receipt of the same, the accused persons
failed to do so. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed for an
offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as, the ‘NI Act‘).
3. When the accused entered appearance, substance of accusations was stated
to them, to which they all pleaded ‘not guilty’. Their plea of defence has
been as follows:
(a) Accused no. 2 (stated to be the signatory to the cheque in question)
stated that the cheque in question has not been issued by him to the
complainant. Further, that he did not use to look after the factory and
that the cheques used to be kept with accused no. 4, and that after aCC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -3-
dispute between accused no. 2 and accused no. 4, accused no. 4 has
misused the cheques.
(b) Accused no. 3 stated that the cheque in question does not bear her
signatures and that she did not issue the same to the complainant.
(c) Accused no.4 stated that he did not issue the cheque in question to the
complainant. Further, that he was not a director of accused no. 1 when
the cheque in question was issued.
TABLE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD
4. In compliance to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State Of Gujarat
(2025 Insc 1433)”, the evidence of the case is as follows:
Witnesses
Sr. Witness Name of the witness Description
No. Identification
number
1. CW-1 Sh. Om Prakash Taparia Complainant
2. DW-1 Sh. Dinesh Chand Gupta Accused no. 4
3. DW-2 Sh. Rohit Mahajan Accused no. 2
Documents
Sr. No. Document Identification number Proved by
1. Ex. CW-1/A (Cheque in question) CW-1
2. Ex. CW-1/B to Ex. CW-1/E (Bank return memos) CW-1
3. Ex. CW-1/F (Legal demand notice) CW-1
4. Ex. CW-1/G to Ex. CW-1/M (Registered AD CW-1
receipts)
5. Ex. CW-1/S (Undelivered envelopes) CW-1
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -4-
6. Mark ‘X’ (Document relating to resignation) DW-1
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
5. The complainant became a witness for their case (as CW-1) and tendered
their evidence by way of affidavit. CW-1 relied on documents mentioned
in their affidavit, and the same have also been mentioned above.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and their
statement under Sec. 313 r/w Sec. 281 of the Cr.P.C (Sec. 351 r/w Sec. 316
BNSS) was recorded. As per the accused persons:
(a) Accused no. 1 was represented through Accused no. 2. They stated that
they did not know the complainant, and that no loan was taken by them
from the complainant. Further, that the cheque in question was not
issued to the complainant, and it was lying with accused no. 4 in a blank
signed condition for urgent requirement and it was not known to them
as to how the complainant came into possession of the same. Further, it
was stated that the cheque in question has the signatures of accused no.
2 on it.
(b) Accused no. 2 endorsed the defence taken by accused no. 1.
(c) Accused no. 3 stated that she did not know the complainant. Further,
that she was one of the directors of accused no. 1 company, and had not
taken any loan from or given any assurances to the complainant.
Further, it was stated that the cheque in question does not have her
signatures on it.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -5-
(d) Accused no. 4 denied having taken any loan from the complainant.
Further, it was stated that he had not issued the cheque in question to
the complainant. Further, it was stated by him that the cheque in
question does not bear his signatures.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
7. The matter was then listed for defence evidence. The defence got examined
two witnesses as mentioned in the list above. Further, accused no.4/DW-1
also brought a document as mentioned above.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Ld. Counsel for Complainant submitted that all the requirements of Sec.
138 NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case and
that their case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been
further argued that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence and
rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act, and that therefore, the accused is
guilty of offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act. In particular, it was argued
that:
(a) The present case pertains to a friendly loan transaction and that the
complainant had given the loan in question to accused no. 1 company
on trust of accused no. 4. Further, the complainant carries statutory
presumptions with him.
(b) In all fairness, it has been submitted that there is no role of accused no.
3 except the fact that she was a director of accused no. 1 company at the
relevant time.
(c) The defence has failed to bring any evidence on record to substantiate
the stand taken by them.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -6-
9. Per contra, the defence argued that the complainant has failed to prove their
case and that the accused has been able to rebut the statutory presumptions,
and hence, prayed for an order of acquittal. The arguments of all accused
persons are taken together as they adopted one another’s arguments, except
the ones which have been separately dealt hereunder. In particular, it has
been argued that:
(i) No role has been attributed to accused no. 3 and no one from the
complainant side met her ever. Hence, a prayer of acquittal on behalf
of accused no. 3 is made.
(ii) The alleged loan in question was allegedly advanced in cash which
makes it highly unnatural and improbable that such a transaction
took place. Further, that the complainant has not examined any
witness to the said transaction in support of the advancement of loan.
Furthermore, that the complainant has not produced any document
in support of the alleged loan.
(iii) The accused persons have taken a consistent stand. On the other side,
there are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant/
CW-1. (Reference has been made by Ld. Counsel to the portions of
the testimony which shall be referred to in detail at a later part of the
judgment).
(iv) (On behalf of accused no. 4 only): The accused no. 4 was not a
director when the alleged cheque in question was issued. Reference
in this context is made to Mark ‘X’. Hence, it is argued that even the
basic conditions of Sec. 141 NI Act do not get fulfilled for accused
no. 4.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -7-
LAW ON THE POINT
10. On a reading of the provisions of Section 138 NI Act it is clear that the
ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under the
provision are :
(i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by
them in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another
person from out of that account, and the same must have been
presented for payment within three months from the date on which
it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(ii) The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally
enforceable debt or other liability;
(iii) The cheque is 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;
(iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes 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;
(v) the 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 notice;
If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied then the person who has
drawn the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -8-
Reference in this context may be made, inter alia, to “Kusum Ingots &
Alloys Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC
745]”.
11. As Accused no. 2 to 4 are sought to be made liable on account of their
connection with the Accused no. 1 company, the provisions of Sec. 141 NI
Act have to be read with Sec. 138 NI Act. Section 141 NI Act reads as
under:
“141. Offences by companies. —
(1)If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a
company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall
be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any
person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such offence:…”
12. The law on the point has been lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in “S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.
[(2005) 8 SCC 89]”. Some of the part relevant to the present case is as
follows:
“…10… What is required is that the persons who are sought to be
made criminally liable under Section 141 should be, at the time the
offence was committed, in charge of and responsible to the company
for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected
with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. It isCC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. -9-
only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the
conduct of business of the company at the time of commission of an
offence, who will be liable for criminal action. It follows from this that
if a director of a company who was not in charge of and was not
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the
relevant time, will not be liable under the provision. The liability arises
from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of
the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and
not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a
company….”
INGREDIENT(S) IN DISPUTE
13. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the ingredients
mentioned at (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) above. This is because drawing of the
cheque by the drawer accused no. 1 company and the presentation of the
same by the complainant are not disputed. Further, the return of the cheque
as dishonoured by bank is not disputed (reference in this context may be
made to the bank returning memo, non-disputing of the document by the
accused persons and the provisions of Sec. 146 of the NI Act).
14. Further, ingredient (iv) above also stands satisfied on the basis of material
on record. Further, postal receipts/regd. AD receipts are also on record, and
hence, presumption under Sec. 27 General Clauses Act read with Sec. 114
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises against the respective accused persons.
Furthermore, the non-payment in response to the legal demand notice is
also not disputed, and hence, ingredient (v) above also stands fulfilled.
More importantly, in any case, it is not the case of the accused persons that
they had made payment to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. – 10 –
summons of the present case, and hence, this ingredient gets fulfilled.
Reference in this context may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed &
Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555″.
15. The parties are at dispute in relation to ingredient (ii) above, i.e., the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 1
16. Before examining the liability of natural persons, it is convenient to
examine the liability of the accused no. 1 company. This is because the
liability of natural accused persons is sought to be structured on the
principles of vicarious liability and that is a superstructure on the liability
of accused no. 1 company.
17. The case of the complainant is that at the request of accused no. 4, a
friendly loan of Rs. 300,000/- was given to the accused no. 1 company.
Further, that it was given because assurances were extended by accused
nos. 2 to 4 about its repayment. It is stated that there existed a legally
enforceable liability as above-mentioned for which the cheque was issued,
and that the complainant carries statutory presumptions with them.
Law on existence of legally enforceable debt/other liability..
18. The law on the point of existence of legally enforceable debt or other
liability is well settled. In this context, the provisions of Sec. 139 NI Act
r/w Sec. 118 (a) NI Act also assume importance. Sec. 139 NI Act raises a
presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that they received the
cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Section 118 (a) NI
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. – 11 –
Act raises a presumption that a negotiable instrument (including a cheque)
has been drawn or made for consideration.
19. Both the provisions (Sec. 139 and 118 (a) NI Act) belong to the popular
class of ‘shall be presumed’ which is clearly defined in Sec. 4 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 18721. As per the said provision of the evidence law, the
court has to mandatorily presume a fact which is stated by any law to be
‘shall presumed’, but the presumption is taken away if the contrary is
proved. In this context, the accused may lift the presumption of existence
of legally enforceable debt or other liability in either of the two ways; by
shaking the case of the complainant in this respect or by leading positive
defence evidence in the same regard.
20. The law on the point of standard of proof applicable for the defence is also
well settled. Reference in this context may be made to the definition of
‘proved’ as per the evidence law2:
“”proved”.–A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the
matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that
it exists;”
Further reference in the context of presumptions under NI Act, may be
made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors.,
2008 (8) SCALE 680″, which was relied on by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in “Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898)”. In the said
judgments, it was held that the standard of proof for rebutting the
1
Corresponding provision under Sec. 2(l) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
2
Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 2(j) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 12 -
presumptions by the defence is that of preponderance of probabilities.
Whether in a case, the defence has been able to discharge that onus or not
is a question of fact, which has to be examined on case to case basis.
Examination of facts of the present case..
21. Accordingly, the examination is in the direction of examining whether
there exist major infirmities or contradictions in the case of the complainant
that rebut the above-mentioned presumptions, or otherwise create a
reasonable doubt in the story of the complainant.
22. CW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defence.
23. CW-1 was cross-examined on multiple dimensions. Ld. Counsel appearing
for the accused persons have made reference to certain portions of the
testimony of the complainant/CW-1 to show that the said witness
contradicted himself on material aspects. Reference shall be given to those
points one by one.
24. In the examination in chief by way of affidavit, CW-1 deposed as:
“…That the complainant, is/was having a very cordial family
relations with accused no. 4 Shri Dinesh Chandra Gupta and on
whose request the complainant had in July 2011 forwarded a
friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs only) to accused no. 1
business entity on assurance from Notices nos.2, 3 and 4, looking
after the day today affairs of the company, that the repayment will
be done either in November 2011 or on demand…”3
However, in the cross-examination, CW-1 deposed as:
3
Examination in chief by way of affidavit of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 13 -
“…The said loan was asked by the Directors namely Mr. Rohit
Mahajan and Mr. Dinesh Chandra Gupta in July 2011 verbally…”4
The improvement in the version of CW-1 to also cover the name of
Accused no. 2 is one of the relevant facts. Connected to this aspect, it is
relevant that CW-1 deposed about Accused no. 2 as follows:
“…I do not remember the mobile number of accused no. 2. I cannot
tell the same even after seeing the same from my mobile as the same
might have deleted as it is 12 years old contact…”
This aspect is material in nature. On one side, complainant claims that they
advanced the loan at the asking of accused no. 2 and 4, and on the other
hand, they cannot even provide the mobile number of accused no. 2. This
aspect goes against the case of the complainant and casts a doubt on the
version deposed by CW-1. This is more so in light of the clear denial by
accused no. 2 in their statements on record to have known the complainant.
Further, the non-availability of mobile number of a person whom one
claims to be one at whose request and assurance a loan was advanced, is
contrary to general human conduct, particularly in the technologically
advanced era of today.
25. Examining further, CW-1 deposed on one occasion as:
“…No post dated security cheque was kept by me against the said
alleged loan transactions…”5
However, on a later date in further cross-examination, the same witness
deposed:
4
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 05.03.2020.
5
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 28.10.2022.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 14 -
“…I had taken the cheque in question from the accused no. 2
Rohit Mahajan for the purpose of security on the assurance of the
accused that the same will be encashed after its presentation…”6
The said contradiction in the stand of the complainant/CW-1 is material
and one of the relevant facts.
26. Examining further, in the examination in chief, complainant/CW-1 stated
that the loan in question was advanced as a friendly loan to accused no. 1
company. Firstly, the concept of friendly loan by its inherent nature goes
strangely with the other party/alleged borrower being a corporate entity.
Secondly, in their cross-examination, CW-1 deposed as:
“…It is wrong to suggest that it was a friendly loan. (Vol. It was a
business loan.)…”7
This contradiction adds to the weaknesses in the reliability of CW-1, as
already pointed out above.
27. Further, in cross-examination, CW-1 deposed as:
“…I met accused no. 2 through accused no, 4. I met accused no. 3
also at the above said office at Piragarhi…”8
However, on a later date, in further cross-examination, the same witness
deposed as:
“…It is correct that I have never met and dealt with accused no. 3
Smt. Seema Mahajan. I do not know whether accused no. 3 Smt
Seema Mahajan is the signatory of the cheque in question Ex. CW
1/A…”96
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 17.03.2023.
7
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 17.03.2023.
8
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 05.03.2020.
9
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 28.10.2022.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 15 -
This shifting of stands by CW-1 shakes his reliability as a witness and
consequently, affects the probative value of what they depose. The stands
taken by CW-1 are contradictory in nature and the degree and frequency of
contradiction is high. It affects the weight of his oral evidence.
28. Further, CW-1 deposed as:
“…It is correct that accused no.2/Mr. Rohit Mahajan and accused
no. 4/Dinesh Chandra Gupta were having differences qua
business and were logger heads to each other, however, the said
fact came to my knowledge later…”10
However, in further cross-examination at a later date of hearing, the same
witness deposed as:
“…I never agreed on the last date of evidence that any dispute had
arisen between accused no, 2 & 4, It is wrong to suggest that as
there were disputes arisen between accused nos. 2 & 4 and therefore,
accused no. 4 had handed over blank signed cheques lying in his
custody to me…”11
The above contradiction is material in nature, particularly in light of the
defence taken by accused no. 2.
29. Further, added to the above aspects, CW-1 deposed as follows:
“…No written documents were executed or procurerd by me while
advancing said loan…”12
“…It is correct that no acknowledgment/writing was made qua the
said alleged cash loan…”1310
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 28.10.2022.
11
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 17.03.2023.
12
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 05.03.2020.
13
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 28.10.2022.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 16 -
“…Apart from cheque in question, I do not have any proof in writing
with regard to the loan…”14
“…The accused persons have not issued any receipts with regard to
the said loan as the same was given in good faith…”15
The fact that there is no documentation of the alleged loan in question is
one of the relevant facts. Generally, the law does not require a loan
transaction to be necessarily documented. However, when the reliability of
the only witness for the complainant is in doubt for the reasons explained
already, the absence of any documentary support for its case widens the
gap in the story of the complainant.
30. The above-contradictions in the testimony of the complainant/CW-1 and
the facts from record create a reasonable doubt as to whether the loan was
advanced as alleged by the complainant. The reliability of the only
complainant witness CW-1 has been put in doubt. That consequentially
also rebuts the presumptions that existed in favour of the complainant. The
complainant has not provided any explanation to the gaps created by the
defence, and no evidence has been brought to sustain the case without the
presumptions.
31. On the other side, the defence got examined DW-1 (accused no. 4) and
DW-2 (accused no. 2), who deposed their respective versions of defence.
In their cross-examination, no doubt on their truthfulness could be created.
For the sake of brevity, the versions of DW-1 and DW-2 are not elaborated
here in the examination of liability of accused no. 1.
32. In view of the above, accused no. 1 company cannot be made liable for the
offence under Sec. 138 NI Act in the present case.
14
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 17.03.2023.
15
Cross-examination of CW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Taparia, dated 17.03.2023.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 17 -
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 2
33. The liability of accused no. 2 is sought to be built upon as a super-structure
on the foundation of liability of accused no. 1. As the case against accused
no. 1 has been shaken, that affects the vicarious liability of accused no. 2.
Further, Accused no. 2 entered the witness box as DW-2, a witness for the
defence. He endorsed the stand taken by him in the previous statements at
the time of framing of notice and statement of accused under Sec. 313
CrPC. No doubt could be created on the version deposed by him. Further,
he also elaborated on various aspects concerning the cheque in question
and no doubt could be created on those versions.
34. Accordingly, accused no. 2 cannot be held liable for the offence under Sec.
138 NI Act r/w Sec. 141 NI Act in the present case.
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 3
35. The liability of accused no. 3 is sought to be built upon as a super-structure
on the foundation of liability of accused no. 1. As the case against accused
no. 1 has been shaken, that affects the vicarious liability of accused no. 3.
Further, the complainant gave contradictory stands regarding his
connection with accused no. 3. Furthermore, at the stage of final
arguments, in all fairness, it was admitted on behalf of the complainant that
there is no role attributed to accused no. 3.
36. Accordingly, for all these reasons explained above and elaborated in detail
already, accused no. 3 cannot be held liable for the offence under Sec. 138
NI Act r/w Sec. 141 NI Act in the present case.
LIABILITY OF ACCUSED NO. 4
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 18 -
37. The liability of accused no. 4 is sought to be built upon as a super-structure
on the foundation of liability of accused no. 1. As the case against accused
no. 1 has been shaken, that affects the vicarious liability of accused no. 4.
There is no need to examine Mark ‘X’ and its authenticity, as the case
against accused no. 1 (being the basis of vicarious liability of accused no.
4) has not been made out.
38. Accordingly, accused no. 4 cannot be held liable for the offence under Sec.
138 NI Act r/w Sec. 141 NI Act in the present case.
FINAL DECISION
39. Accordingly, the decision in the present case for the offence under Sec. 138
NI Act is as follows:
Sr. No. Name of accused Convicted/Acquitted
1. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Acquitted
2. Sh. Rohit Mahajan Acquitted
3. Smt. Seema Mahajan Acquitted
4. Sh. Dinesh Chandra Gupta Acquitted
40. A copy of the judgment be provided to all the parties, forthwith. The details
of the office of DLSA, Central, THC be annexed separately.
41. The judgment be uploaded on the CIS portal, forthwith.
Digitally signed
Pronounced in open court by DANVEER
DANVEER Date: 2026.02.23
16:18:32 +0530
(Danveer)
JMFC (NI Act)-04, Central, THC
23.02.2026.
Note: This judgment contains 19 pages and every page has been signed by the
undersigned.
CC No.: 521456/16 Om Prakash Taparia vs. Real Life Plastics Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. - 19 -
