IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the drawer's admission of signing the cheque and the existence of outstanding liability establish a prima facie case under Section 138 NI Act. Additionally, the court emphasized that a sole proprietor is the only person liable under Section 138 NI Act and that Section 141 NI Act does not apply to a sole proprietorship firm.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

i. setting aside of order dated 17.10.2019 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, Patiala House Courts, Delhi (`learned Magistrate')in Complaint Case No. 4157/2016, as well as order dated 23.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-07,Patiala House Courts, Delhi (`learned ASJ') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 106/2020 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner;

ii. allowing the application filed by petitioner under Section 243 read with Section 293 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking examination of the cheque in question by Government Scientific Expert and another application seeking summoning of the witnesses as mentioned in the application.

2. The factual background of the present case, in brief, is that respondent no. 2/complainant `M/s. Rakesh Press' had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act') whereby it was stated that the complainant was engaged in the business of printing books, magazines and other periodicals for respondent no. 3/accused i.e. `M/s. Duggals Print House', a sole proprietorship concern, and as on 02.07.2014, there was an outstanding balance to the tune of Rs.11,08,802/- against respondent no. 3. It was alleged that towards the said liability, the sole proprietor of respondent no. 3 i.e. Mr Siddharth Duggal (petitioner herein) had acknowledged his liability as on 31.03.2016 and letters were also exchanged between the complainant and the accused. Eventually, as alleged, a cheque bearing no. 166360 dated 17.08.2016 of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Rajouri Garden branch, New Delhi was issued towards discharge of liability of respondent no. 3 as part-payment and the petitioner had assured respondent no. 2 that he would clear the outstanding dues. However, upon presentation of the cheque, the same had got dishonoured vide return memo dated 19.08.2016 with remarks "Account Closed/Transferred To". Thereafter, respondent no. 2 had issued legal notice calling upon the accused persons to make the payment of cheque amount and upon their failure to do so, the present complaint case was filed before Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 20.10.2016.

3. Pursuant to filing of complaint case, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 20.10.2016, and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against him on 06.03.2018. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no. 2 was examined and discharged on 02.07.2018 and the statement of petitioner was recorded on 05.07.2018 under Section 313of Cr.P.C.On 23.07.2018, the petitioner had moved two applications before the learned Magistrate, the first application being filed under Section 243 read with Section 293 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45/73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for referring the cheque in question to FSL,and second application being for summoning of certain defence witnesses. However, learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.10.2019 had dismissed both the applications. The relevant portions of the said order read as under:

"6. Therefore, it is clear from the above discussion that as long as the drawer admits his/her signature on the cheque, other details of the cheque not filled by him or filled by a different ink at a later time would not amount to `material alternation' and the cheque would be a valid cheque for the purposes of S. 138 NI Act. In the present case, the signatures of the cheque has never been denied by the accused. In response to Notice u/s 251 CrPC dated 06.03.2018, accused no. 2 has stated that "I have signed the dishonoured cheque in question in the capacity of authorized signatory".

Hence, since the signature is admitted by the accused, no further examination of the cheque by government scientific expe