While Raj Singh was convicted by UT Judicial Magistrate Jasbir Singh, Dhanwant Singh Dhillon was held guilty by Judicial Magistrate A K Bishnoi. Rajinder Kumar was, meanwhile, convicted by Judicial Magistrate Tejwinder Singh.

Arguing before the court, the counsel for the complainant, Jiwan Malhotra of Sector 15, had alleged that the cheque of Rs 27,000 issued by Raj Singh was dishonoured due to "insufficient balance." The accused, when confronted with the incriminating evidence against him, had, however, denied the allegations and demanded a trial.

The defence counsel had added that the accused had already made the payment vide another cheque. The previous cheque was demanded by the accused while issuing the second cheque, but the complainant had claimed the same to have been lost.

In Dhanwant Singh Dhillon's case, the counsel for the complainant, Mohinder Singh Bajwa, had stated that the three cheques of Rs 25,000 each, besides another cheque of Rs 15,000 were dishonoured with the remarks "account closed". The accused had earlier taken a loan of Rs one lakh for promotion of his business, Bajwa had stated.

The accused, on the other hand, had denied the allegations. His counsel had stated that the accused could not be punished under the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheques had been dishonoured due to the account being closed. The accused could not be held liable as the cheques had been presented by the complainant, knowing the account to be closed, the counsel had added.

Meanwhile, in Rajinder Kumar's case, complainant Madhu Sharma, director of Vishwas Deposits and Advances Limited, had stated that the cheque issued by the accused had been dishonoured.