Delhi District Court
Surjit Lal Sachdeva vs Puneet Dwivedi on 16 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(NI ACT), NORTH-WEST, ROHINI, DELHI
Presided by :- Ms. Nitika
CNR No. DLNW020044842019
CC No. 3581/2019
Sh. Surjit Lal Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Ram Lubhaya Sachdeva
R/o House No. -43, 2nd Floor, Bharat Nagar,
Ashok Vihar, New Delhi-110052.
.....Complainant
Versus
Sh. Puneet Dwivedi
S/o Sh. Jagmohan Dwivedi,
R/o House No. 6, Anand Vatika (Ext.),
Vrindavan, Mathura-281121
Also At
Shir Jee Associates
Office :60 Futa Road, In front of B.S. Dham
Chaitanya Vihar, Phase-II,
Vrindavan, Mathura-281121
.........Accused
JUDGMENT
(1) Offence complained of : Section 138 N.I. Act
(2) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(3) Date of institution of case : 05.02.2019
(4) Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026
(5) Final Order/Judgment : Convicted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The present case pertains to a complaint filed under
section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 1 of 19
Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:41:27
+0530
Instruments Act, 1881 by Sh. Surjit Lal Sachdeva
(hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) against Sh. Puneet
Dwivedi (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) for dishonor
of a cheque bearing number 094764 dated 11.12.2018 for a
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs), drawn on Axis
Bank Ltd., Vrindavan-281121 (hereinafter referred to as
‘cheque in question’).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The factual matrix of the complainant’s case is that
accused is known to the complainant since more than ten
years and in the month of October, 2014, the accused had
approached the complainant to get investment in his
property investment scheme and gave several schemes for
investment in property and represented that accused shall
given minimum return @ 12% per annum to the
complainant. It is stated that believing upon the eloquent
representations and assurances of the accused, the
complainant agreed to invest money with the accused and
paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused on 10.12.2014
via bank transfer in the account of the accused. It is stated
that in order to win the trust of the complainant and to show
his bonafides, the accused also gave the returns on the
investment of the complainant for about one year.
Thereafter, the accused again approached the complainant
and demanded Rs.12,00,000/- in cash and represented that
he would make investment in another property. It is stated
that initially complainant was not willing to pay any
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 2 of 19
Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:41:40
+0530
amount to the accused in cash, however, the accused told
the complainant that seller of the property in which the
accused proposed to invest, was demanding in cash and
accused further assured the complainant that complainant
shall get returns of minimum 15% per annum from the said
investment. It is stated that considering the relationship and
request of the accused, complainant again arranged
Rs.12,00,000/- and paid the same in cash to the accused in
the month of November, 2016. It is stated that after
receiving total amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- accused started
changing his behaviour towards the complainant and started
neglecting the complainant. It is stated that accused also
failed to pay the returns which he had assured to pay after
receiving the money from the complainant. It is stated that
complainant requested the accused to pay the returns on the
money paid by him or else return the whole amount of
Rs.19,00,000/- paid by him but the accused requested for
some time on the ground of recession in real estate
alongwith the assurance to the complainant that he would
pay the principal as well as the return profits accrued
thereupon to the complainant within six months or on
disposal of the property which ever earlier. It is stated that
accused failed to honour the assurances given by him at the
time of taking money and complainant gave various
reminders calling upon the accused to repay the aforesaid
amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- but the accused kept on avoiding
the complainant on one pretext or the other. It is stated that
after much persuasion, the accused issued three chequesCC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 3 of 19 Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:41:46
+0530
including the cheque in question i.e. cheque bearing no.
094764 of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 11.12.2018 drawn on Axis
Bank Ltd. Vrindavan, UP-281121 towards part payment of
the aforesaid amount and in discharge of his legal liability
towards the complainant and assured that the said cheque(s)
would be honoured upon presentation. It is stated that when
the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for
encashment, the same was returned dishonoured with the
remarks “Drawers Signature Differs”. Thereafter, the
complainant was constrained to send a legal notice dated
26.12.2018 which was sent by speed post on 26.12.2018
through his advocate to the accused calling upon him to pay
the amount of cheque within 15 days from receipt of notice.
However, despite due service, the accused failed to pay the
amount to the complainant within the stipulated period and
therefore the present complaint has been filed.
3. Complainant tendered his pre-summoning evidence
on 23.02.2019 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied
upon the following documents in his evidence :
Ex. CW1/1 : Original Cheque in question.
Ex CW1/2 : Bank Return memo dated 12.12.2018
Ex CW1/3 : Legal notice dated 26.12.2018
Ex CW1/4 : Post receipts
Ex CW1/5 (Colly) : Tracking Reports.
4. Since the accused failed to make payment despite
due service of notice, the complainant therefore instituted
the present complaint. The complainant examined himself
while tendering pre-summoning evidence and after
considering the complaint and the material available on
Digitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 4 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:41:50
+0530
record, cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 was taken and summons were issued
to the accused on 23.02.2019.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND PROCEEDINGS
5. Since prima facie offence under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act was made out, the accused was
summoned vide order dated 23.02.2019.
23.02.2019 Accused entered
his appearance and notice was served upon him for offence
punishable u/s 138 NI Act on 27.10.2021, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In his plea of defense, accused submitted that he is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter.
Accused admitted that cheque(s) pertains to his bank
account and that it bears his signatures. Accused submitted
that neither the contents including date and amount were
filled by him nor had he handed over the cheque to the
complainant.
7. Thereafter, considering the plea of defence raised
and in view of the application filed by the accused under
Sec.145(2), NI Act, the accused was permitted to cross
examine the complainant vide order dated 04.03.2022 by
allowing the said application.
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
8. The complainant adopted his pre-summoning
evidence and placed reliance upon the documents Ex
CW1/1 to Ex CW1/5. Complainant examined three
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 5 of 19
Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:41:56
+0530
witnesses in his evidence. He examined himself as CW1,
his son Sh. Sanjeev Kumar as CW2 and Sh. Satyam
Sharma, Manager, Axis Bank as CW3, who were duly
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and
complainant’s evidence was closed vide order dated
20.04.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
9. All the incriminating evidences and material were put
to the accused and his statement as per Section 281 r/w 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter
referred to as CrPC) was recorded distinctly to this effect on
23.09.2024. In his plea of defence, accused submitted that
he did not have any transaction with the complainant but
that he did business of property dealing with one Jitender
who was engaged in business of Travels and Tours as well
as financing. Accused stated that he told Jitender that he
was in need of money and he arranged Rs.7,00,000/- in
cash. Accused stated that he had taken the said amount from
Jitender on interest to whom he had provided his account
details. Accused stated that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-
was transferred in his account at behest of Jitender and that
he did not receive any amount in cash from complainant.
Accused stated that Jitender had asked for three security
cheques from him at the time of giving loan of Rs.
7,00,000/- and he had given three blank signed cheques to
Jitender as security. Accused stated that he did not give any
cheque to the complainant. Accused stated that the address
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 6 of 19 Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:04
+0530
on legal notice is correct, however he did not remember
whether he had received the legal demand notice. Accused
stated that he had taken loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Jitender
and paid him Rs.9,20,000/- approx. in cash in installments
as and when he had money with him. Accused stated that
he had asked for return of his cheques but Jitender kept on
delaying the same on one or another pretext. Accused
stated that he trusted Jitender as he did business with him.
Accused stated that in 2017 he had an altercation with
Jitender for some commission issue and they had a huge
fight as he was asking for commission which was not due to
him. Accused stated that Jitender abused and threatened
him and that is why the present complaint has been filed.
Accused stated that he knows the complainant as he has
done one or two property transactions with him wherein
some property was purchased in the name of some family
members of complainant but that no such transaction as
alleged by the complainant took place. Accused stated that
he does not have any liability towards the complainant and
that the cheque is without consideration.
10. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
Subsequently, complainant filed an application U/s 348
BNSS to bring on record an audio and video recording
which application was dismissed vide order dated
23.04.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Final arguments were heard at length on behalf of
Digitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 7 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:10
+0530
both the parties.
LEGAL PROVISION
12. Before weighing the evidences adduced by the
parties, the statutory provision under consideration is being
recapitulated for understanding the essential ingredients of
an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 :
Dishonour of Cheque for insufficiency, etc. of
funds in the account: Where any cheque drawn
by a person on an account maintained by him
with a banker for payment of any amount of
money to another person from out of that account
for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt
or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of money standing
to the credit of that 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 that bank, such person
shall be deemed to have committed an offence
and shall, without prejudice to any other
provision of this Act, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine which may extend to
twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.
Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall apply unless–
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, 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 thirty days] of the receipt of
information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the
Digitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 8 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:14
+0530
payment of the said amount of money to the
payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due
course of the cheque within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,
“debt or other liability” means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability.
13. The essential constituent ingredients of an offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can be
enlisted as follows :
i) Person must have drawn a cheque on an
account maintained by him in a bank for
payment of a certain amount of money to
another person from out of that account;
ii) The cheque should have been issued for
the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability;
iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date
on which it is drawn or within the period of
its validity whichever is earlier;
iv) That 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;
v) 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;
vi) 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
Digitally
signed by
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 9 of 19 NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:20
+0530
said notice.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
14. The accused has unequivocally admitted his
signatures upon the cheque in question. The bank returning
memo is also not in dispute.
15. The accused has admitted the address upon the
legal demand notice as his correct address but has, however,
denied to having received the legal demand notice qua the
cheque in question. The said plea, however, singularly will
not aid and rescue the accused since a presumption as to
due delivery in the ordinary course of events necessarily
accrues where the demand notice is accurately addressed.
Also, the complainant has tendered the postal receipts and
tracking reports as Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/5 (Colly)
respectively. Further, reliance can be had upon the verdict
in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed &
Anr delivered on 18 May, 2007 whereby the Hon’ble Apex
Court, while referring to Section 27 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 (for short ‘GC Act‘) has noted that a presumption
is to be suitably raised in favour of due delivery through
postal mode where the Notice has been aptly and accurately
addressed to the accused upon his last known address and
that the complainant is liberated from any further
responsibility thereafter. The relevant extract of the ratio is
as follows:
“Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of
notice has been effected when it is sent to the correctDigitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 10 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:25
+0530
address by registered post. In view of the said
presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent
by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is
unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in
spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed
to have been served or that the addressee is deemed
to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the
contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice
is deemed to have been effected at the time at which
the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary
course of business. This Court has already held that
when a notice is sent by registered post and is
returned with a postal endorsement refused or not
available in the house or house locked or shop closed
or addressee not in station, due service has to be
presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu
Singh ; State of M.P. Vs. Hiralal & Ors. and V.Raja
Kumari Vs. P.Subbarama Naidu & Anr. ] It is,
therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption
available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not
necessary to aver in the complaint under Section
138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the
accused or that the accused had a role to play in the
return of the notice unserved.”
16. Therefore, it is succinctly surmised that a
presumption as to due delivery of the demand notice
invariably arises where the same has been duly and properly
addressed and the said presumption in fact arises in the
present factual scenario.
Digitally
signed by
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 11 of 19 NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:30
+0530
17. On account of the aforesaid, the statutory
presumptions operating under Section 118 read with
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
indisputably accrue in favour of the complainant. The said
presumptions, however, are rebuttable in nature. The law
relating to the onus upon the accused for rebutting the
presumptions is no logner res integra. The degree of proof
necessitated to be adduced by the accused in order to rebut
the said presumption has also been elucidated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the verdict titled as Ranagappa v
Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441. It was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said case that:
“28. In the absence of compelling justifications,
reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in
view, it is a settled position that when an accused has
to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the
standard of proof for doing so is that of
“preponderance of probabilities”. Therefore, if the
accused is able to raise a probable defence which
creates doubts about the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.
As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on
the materials submitted by the complainant in order
to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in
some cases the accused may not need to adduce
evidence of his/her own.”
Digitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 12 of 19
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:35
+0530
18. Thus, it is clear that while the reverse onus clause of
Section 139 operates in favour of the complainant, the
burden as to the degree of proof necessitated to be adduced
for rebutting the presumptions is not as onerous upon the
accused as that upon a complainant in a criminal trial to
prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not
expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof.
19. In order to rebut the statutory presumptions, the
accused raised the following defence, apart from the
aforesaid plea as to the demand notice.
20. It is further the defence of the accused that he
never issued the cheque(s) in question in favour of the
complainant. It is the plea of the accused that he was in
need of funds and therefore he sought help from his
acquaintance namely one Mr. Jitender Kumar who granted
him a loan for an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs. It is however,
pertinent to note that the accused has purposefully indicated
the fact that even said amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs was got
disbursed to him from the account of the complainant albeit
at the behest of the said Jitender Kumar. The accused had
also put specific suggestions to the complainant indicating
that the amount of Rs.7 Lakhs was got disbursed to him
from the account of the complainant. The relevant excerpt
is reproduced as follows:-
CW-1: “It is wrong to suggest that in the month of
Digitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 13 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:42
+0530
December 2014 the accused was in need of money
and as such the accused had approached Mr.
Jitender Kumar for financial assistance. It is wrong
to suggest that Mr. Jitender Kumar had agreed to
provide financial assistance on interest of 18% per
annum. It is wrong to suggest that Mr. Jitender
Kumar had got the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-
transferred from the account of the complainant. It
is wrong to suggest that since amount was
transferred by Mr. Jitender Kumar from the account
of the complainant, three blank signed cheques were
given to Jitender Kumar by the accused as security
with the assurance that the said cheques will be
returned back on payment of entire amount.”
In addition, the accused has alleged that he had
given three blank signed security cheques including the
cheque in question to the said Mr. Jitender Kumar against
the aforesaid loan and has also even repaid the entire loan
amount to Mr. Jitender Kumar. Additionally, he has also
alleged that the cheque(s) in question have been misused
collectively by the complainant alongwith Mr. Jitender
Kumar on account of quarrels and disputes between the
accused and Mr. Jitender Kumar. The said plea of the
accused however, suffers from material infirmities and
improbabilities since it is inconceivable by every parameter
of ordinary prudence as to why would the alleged loan
amount be disbursed from the account of the complainant if
the loan was infact not even advanced by the complainantCC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 14 of 19
Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:42:56
+0530
to the accused but by a third party namely Mr. Jitender
Kumar.
Furthermore, the said plea of the accused further
remains in the nature of a bald assertion, unsubstantiated in
material particulars, as no reasonable or plausible
explanation has been putforth regarding the conscious and
deliberate failure of the accused to bring the said Mr.
Jitender Kumar into the witness box in support of his
contentions if the transaction had infact taken place
between Jitender Kumar and the accused as per the plea
raised by the accused, as the said witness would have
clarified and shed light upon this aspect which is the
primary contention and line of defence raised by the
accused.
While there is no gainsaying the fact that the
burden upon the accused is to raise a probable defence yet,
the said defence must be in tandem with the ordinary course
of prudence and such that it is able to withstand the scrutiny
of judicial test. In the present factual matrix, if for the sake
of argument, the plea of the accused is considered that there
was a third party involved from whom he had availed the
loan instead of from the complainant then the onus was
upon the accused to bring such third party into the witness
box to bring true facts to the fore, which has consciously
not been done by the accused and no plausible explanation
has come on record for such failure on his part. In the
absence of any substantiating and corroborative material on
record in support of the aforesaid averment, the sameDigitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 15 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:43:01
+0530
cannot be relied upon to dislodge the statutory
presumptions operating in favour of the complainant.
21. Furthermore, it is also the plea of the accused that
the contents in the cheque in question apart from the
signatures have not been filled out by him. The said plea
however, ipso facto, will not so much as put a dent upon the
case of the complainant, let alone diminish the liability of
the accused as it is a settled proposition of law relating to
Negotiable Instruments that once the signatures upon the
cheque(s) in question are admitted by the drawer then it is
immaterial that the contents and the other particulars might
have been filled by a person other than the signatory of the
cheque in question.
22. At this stage, it is apposite to heed to the notable
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh
Vs. Mukesh Kumar AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2446,
wherein it has been observed that :
“37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, in particular, Section 20,
87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who
signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee
remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut
the presumption that the cheque had been issued for
payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is
immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by
any person other than the drawer, if the cheque isDigitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 16 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:43:07
+0530
duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise
valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be
attracted”.
23. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the mere
plea that the particulars upon the cheque in question were
filled by a person apart from the signatory of the cheque in
question will not by itself exonerate the accused from the
clutches of liability U/s 138 of Negotiable Act, 1881.
24. Additionally, it is also the defence of the accused
that the complainant lacked the adequate financial capacity
to be able to advance the amount in question to the accused.
Multiple suggestions in this regard have also been put to the
complainant on various occasions to highlight his financial
incapacity. However, the complainant has successfully
explained the sources of funds as he has categorically stated
that out of the total amount a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs was
advanced by the complainant from his own savings and an
amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs was acquired from family members
including wife and son of the complainant. The complainant
has also examined his son as CW2 to further fortify the
financial soundness and the capacity of the complainant,
collectively alongwith CW2, to have advanced the alleged
amount to the accused. The thorough analysis of the
testimonies of CW1 and CW2 read cumulatively amply
clarifies and establishes the financial capacity of the
complainant to advance the amount in question and
therefore there remains no room for doubt in this regard.
Digitally
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 17 of 19 signed by
NITIKA
NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:43:13
+0530
25. In light of the above, cumulative analysis of the
evidences on record, it comes to fore that the accused has
failed to adduce a probable defence on record which could
disprove the case of the complainant.
26. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion it is
sufficiently surmised that apart from making a few bald
assertions, the accused has not been able to bring any
probable evidence on record strengthened enough to rebut
the presumptions accruing in favour of the complainant.
And the defence raised by the accused has remained
unsubstantiated in material particulars so much so that he
has failed to raise a preponderance of probabilities in his
favour.
CONCLUSION
27. After cumulatively considering the evidences
adduced and arguments advanced on behalf of both the
parties and further in light of the aforesaid discussion, this
Court is of the conclusion that the complainant has
succeeded in proving all the essential ingredients of
Section 138 of the NI Act which have remained
unrebutted as the accused has failed to dislodge the
presumptions raised in favour of the complainant.
Accordingly, the accused namely Puneet Dwivedi S/o Sh.
Jagmohan Dwivedi, is hereby convicted under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Digitally
signed by
NITIKA
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 18 of 19 NITIKA Date:
2026.07.16
15:43:25
+0530
28. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the
convict.
Announced in open court on 16.07.2026
Digitally signed
by NITIKA
NITIKA Date: 2026.07.16
15:44:02 +0530
(Nitika)
JMFC (NI Act) /North West
Rohini/Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains nineteen pages and
each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed
by NITIKA
NITIKA Date: 2026.07.16
15:44:13 +0530
(Nitika)
JMFC (NI Act) /North West
Rohini/Delhi
CC No. 3581/2019 Page No. 19 of 19
