- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: July 09, 2026
% Pronounced on: July 22, 2026 - CRL.REV.P. 271/2024, CRL.M.A. 6083/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL)
349/2024
PARDEEP KUMAR …Petitioner
Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan (DHCLSC) and
Ms. Harsha, Advocates
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. …Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI
Himanshu, PS: Najafgarh
Mr. Sudeep Dey, Mr. Ajit Singh, Mr.
Gaurav Kajla, Mr. Anmol Singhal
and Mr. Joyjeet, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
- By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731
, the petitioner/ accused seeks setting aside of the
order dated 22.12.20232 passed by the learned ASJ-03, South-West
District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi3
in CA No.436/2023, whereby the
judgement on conviction dated 07.07.2023 as well as the order on sentence
dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned MM, South-West District, Dwarka
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 2 of 10
Courts, New Delhi4
in CC No.25171/2019 convicting the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18815
and sentencing him
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay
fine of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.2/ complainant, in default
whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two
months, was upheld.
BRIEF FACTS:
- Succinctly put, the respondent no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint
stating that a cheque bearing no.717458 dated 04.05.2019 for Rs.2,50,000/-
drawn on SBI, Jhajjar Chungi, Rohtak6
issued to him by the petitioner for
repayment of a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- in December
2017 was returned unpaid by the banker on 07.05.2019 with the remark
‘Account Closed’. This led to the respondent no.2 issuing a Legal Notice
dated 04.06.2019 to the petitioner to which neither was there any reply, nor
was the requisite amount paid by the petitioner within the statutory period
of 15 days. Thus, the respondent no.2 initiated proceedings under Section
138 of the NI Act against the petitioner before learned Trial Court. - Upon service therein, the petitioner denied having received any
amount in cash from the respondent no.2 and submitted that the actual loan
amount was only Rs.50,000/- by cheque, which, according to him, had
already been duly returned by him to the respondent no.2 with interest on a
daily basis amounting to about Rs.1,00,000/-. Though he agreed that the
cheque was signed by him, and that he had received the Legal Notice dated
04.06.2019 issued by respondent no.2 pursuant thereto, however it was his
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’
6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘cheque’
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 3 of 10
case that the said cheque had actually been given to the respondent no.2 as
a blank cheque only for the purpose of security and was later misused by
the respondent no.2.
- After taking due note of the aforesaid and other defenses, the
complete evidence on record and the final arguments, the learned Trial
Court held that all the necessary requisites of Section 138
7 NI Act were
made out against the petitioner, especially in view of the admitted issuance
of the cheque by the petitioner including his signatures as well as the
timelines involved of presentation of the cheque to the bank, dishonoring
due to closure of account, Legal Notice and filing of the complaint. The
learned Trial Court further found that the petitioner had been unable to
dislodge the statutory presumptions against him under Section(s) 1188
and
7 138. 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 be extended 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 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 of other liability” means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability.’
8 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.-Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made:-
(a) of consideration:-that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
[xxx xxx xxx]
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 4 of 10
1399 NI Act, particularly, since he failed to produce any evidence qua his
allegedly returning the loan amount with interest to the respondent no.2
through any transaction records or even cash receipts, as also qua any steps
taken by him to retrieve the allegedly blank cheque given by him to the
respondent no.2 as a security. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced in terms thereof. In a challenge thereto, both his conviction
as well as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner were upheld by the
learned Appellate Court by way of the impugned order.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
- In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous since both the Courts below failed to consider
that the respondent no.2 did not show any record of the cash amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly given by him to the petitioner through any receipts,
loan documents, books of accounts, income tax returns, etc., as also did not
show his financial capacity and/ or source of funds to lend the said amount
to the petitioner in the first place, hence, it was not established that the
cheque was issued by the petitioner to discharge any debt/ liability and he
could not have been convicted under Section 138 NI Act. The learned
counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
John K Abraham vs. Simon C Abraham10 as well as of this Court in
Irshad Ahmed vs. Sukhe Singh11 and Kulvinder Singh vs. Kafeel Ahmed12
in support thereof.
9 139. Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.’
10 2014 (2) SCC 236
11 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7811
12 2013 SCC OnLine Del 34
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 5 of 10
- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner led evidence and showed before the Courts below that the
respondent no.2 had advanced a further sum of Rs.18,000/- to the petitioner
by way of cheque bearing no.040147 dated 14.12.2019, and the same raised
sufficient doubt over the case of the respondent no.2 since he would not
have given any further amount to the petitioner, if he already had an
outstanding debt/ liability towards him. The learned counsel also submitted
that the respondent no.2 did not lead any evidence to prove the friendship
between him and the petitioner to prove why he would give him a friendly
loan without interest, or give him further sums of money. - Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in view of the
aforesaid lacunae, as also seeing the clear stance taken by the petitioner that
he had only taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent no.2 and duly
returned the same in daily instalments with interest, the petitioner was able
to rebut the presumption against him under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act,
and since the case of the respondent no.2 was not supported by any
evidence, his complaint ought to have been dismissed. Hence, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been
wrongly passed and is liable to be set aside by this Court. - Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 advanced his
submissions in support of the impugned order which, as per him, is detailed
and well-reasoned and has rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 138 NI Act, since all the necessary ingredients thereof were
duly established by the respondent no.2 with all the proofs thereof, being
the cheque [Ex.CW1/A], the returning memo dated 07.05.2019
[Ex.CW1/B] as well as the legal notice dated 04.06.2019 [Ex.CW1/C]
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 6 of 10
along with the registered-post receipt [Ex.CW1/D] and the tracking report
thereof [Ex.CW1/E (Colly)]. The learned counsel submitted that in view of
the above, coupled with non-denial of the cheque with his signature as well
as receipt of the legal notice dated 04.05.2019 by the petitioner, the
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act were rightly applied in
favour of the respondent no.2 by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court, which the petitioner was wholly unable to rebut in any
manner whatsoever. - Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 in this regard further
submitted that the defence urged by the petitioner was merely cursory
without any documentary evidence, since he neither showed any proof of
repayment of the loan amount, nor did he ever file any complaint with the
police to gain back the allegedly blank cheque being misused by the
respondent no.2. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat13
to submit that in the absence of any cogent evidence led by the petitioner to
rebut the legal presumption in favour of the respondent no.2, questions as
to the source of income of the respondent no.2 or the recording of the cash
transaction through receipts, notes, etc. are wholly irrelevant. Similarly, the
contentions of the petitioner qua non-filing of income tax returns, etc. also
do not dislodge the said legal presumption as held in Barun Kumar vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.14
. - Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that the
petitioner cannot draw any support from John K Abraham (supra) since
13 (2019) 18 SCC 106
14 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3498
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 7 of 10
there were material alterations made in the cheque therein as also there
were contradictions in the handwriting of the accused, whereas in the
present case, there is no discrepancy as to the issuance of the cheque and
the signatures of the petitioner, which have been duly admitted by the
petitioner himself. The learned counsel lastly relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johar & ors. vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.15
and the decision of this Court in Medha Patkar vs. V. K. Saxena16 to
submit that the ambit of interference by this Court in exercise of revisional
powers is extremely limited and cannot be invoked simply to substitute the
well-reasoned view taken by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court without any perversity. The learned counsel hence prayed
that the present petition be dismissed.
- Learned APP also supported the impugned order and the case
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: - Based on the pleadings and documents on record as also the
judgements cited and submissions made by learned counsels for the parties,
the prime issue for consideration is whether the impugned order upholding
the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act suffers from any
error/ infirmity/ illegality/ perversity or the like to bring the same within
the ambit of the present revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. - Sections 138 NI Act is a self-contained code requiring (1) a cheque
to be drawn by the drawer from an account maintained by him for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; and (2)
15 (2008) 3 SCC 423
16 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5089
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 8 of 10
presentation of the said cheque to the bank by the holder within a period of
six months from the date of drawing of such cheque; and (3) return of the
said cheque unpaid due to insufficiency of funds, etc.; and (4) a demand/
notice for repayment made by the holder to the drawer within a period of
30 days thereafter; and yet (5) failure by the drawer to make the repayment
within a period of 15 days from receipt of such notice. Encompassing all
the above, the drawer is deemed to have committed an offence under
Sections 138 NI Act and is liable to be punished as such.
- Section 138 read together with Sections 139 and 118 NI Act evinces
that when all the other criteria as above were fulfilled, a legal presumption
operated in favour of the respondent no.2 that the cheque was issued for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, and it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to prove otherwise for rebutting the said
legal presumption. The same has been repeatedly held to be the correct
position of law, including the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel (supra) relied on by learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 as also Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda17
. - Aside from bald denials/ bare statements/ unsubstantiated claims
regarding the actual loan amount being Rs.50,000/- which the petitioner
claimed to have returned with interest or that he issued a blank cheque as
security, this Court does not find even a shred of evidence or substantiation
thereto. Thus, the petitioner was unable to dislodge the statutory
presumption against him and prove that the cheque was not for a debt/
liability.
17 (2018) 8 SCC 165
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 9 of 10
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 1 of 10
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: July 09, 2026
% Pronounced on: July 22, 2026 - CRL.REV.P. 271/2024, CRL.M.A. 6083/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL)
349/2024
PARDEEP KUMAR …Petitioner
Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan (DHCLSC) and
Ms. Harsha, Advocates
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. …Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI
Himanshu, PS: Najafgarh
Mr. Sudeep Dey, Mr. Ajit Singh, Mr.
Gaurav Kajla, Mr. Anmol Singhal
and Mr. Joyjeet, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
- By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731
, the petitioner/ accused seeks setting aside of the
order dated 22.12.20232 passed by the learned ASJ-03, South-West
District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi3
in CA No.436/2023, whereby the
judgement on conviction dated 07.07.2023 as well as the order on sentence
dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned MM, South-West District, Dwarka
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 2 of 10
Courts, New Delhi4
in CC No.25171/2019 convicting the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18815
and sentencing him
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay
fine of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.2/ complainant, in default
whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two
months, was upheld.
BRIEF FACTS:
- Succinctly put, the respondent no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint
stating that a cheque bearing no.717458 dated 04.05.2019 for Rs.2,50,000/-
drawn on SBI, Jhajjar Chungi, Rohtak6
issued to him by the petitioner for
repayment of a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- in December
2017 was returned unpaid by the banker on 07.05.2019 with the remark
‘Account Closed’. This led to the respondent no.2 issuing a Legal Notice
dated 04.06.2019 to the petitioner to which neither was there any reply, nor
was the requisite amount paid by the petitioner within the statutory period
of 15 days. Thus, the respondent no.2 initiated proceedings under Section
138 of the NI Act against the petitioner before learned Trial Court. - Upon service therein, the petitioner denied having received any
amount in cash from the respondent no.2 and submitted that the actual loan
amount was only Rs.50,000/- by cheque, which, according to him, had
already been duly returned by him to the respondent no.2 with interest on a
daily basis amounting to about Rs.1,00,000/-. Though he agreed that the
cheque was signed by him, and that he had received the Legal Notice dated
04.06.2019 issued by respondent no.2 pursuant thereto, however it was his
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’
6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘cheque’
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 3 of 10
case that the said cheque had actually been given to the respondent no.2 as
a blank cheque only for the purpose of security and was later misused by
the respondent no.2.
- After taking due note of the aforesaid and other defenses, the
complete evidence on record and the final arguments, the learned Trial
Court held that all the necessary requisites of Section 138
7 NI Act were
made out against the petitioner, especially in view of the admitted issuance
of the cheque by the petitioner including his signatures as well as the
timelines involved of presentation of the cheque to the bank, dishonoring
due to closure of account, Legal Notice and filing of the complaint. The
learned Trial Court further found that the petitioner had been unable to
dislodge the statutory presumptions against him under Section(s) 1188
and
7 138. 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 be extended 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 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 of other liability” means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability.’
8 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.-Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made:-
(a) of consideration:-that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
[xxx xxx xxx]
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 4 of 10
1399 NI Act, particularly, since he failed to produce any evidence qua his
allegedly returning the loan amount with interest to the respondent no.2
through any transaction records or even cash receipts, as also qua any steps
taken by him to retrieve the allegedly blank cheque given by him to the
respondent no.2 as a security. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced in terms thereof. In a challenge thereto, both his conviction
as well as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner were upheld by the
learned Appellate Court by way of the impugned order.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
- In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous since both the Courts below failed to consider
that the respondent no.2 did not show any record of the cash amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly given by him to the petitioner through any receipts,
loan documents, books of accounts, income tax returns, etc., as also did not
show his financial capacity and/ or source of funds to lend the said amount
to the petitioner in the first place, hence, it was not established that the
cheque was issued by the petitioner to discharge any debt/ liability and he
could not have been convicted under Section 138 NI Act. The learned
counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
John K Abraham vs. Simon C Abraham10 as well as of this Court in
Irshad Ahmed vs. Sukhe Singh11 and Kulvinder Singh vs. Kafeel Ahmed12
in support thereof.
9 139. Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.’
10 2014 (2) SCC 236
11 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7811
12 2013 SCC OnLine Del 34
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 5 of 10
- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner led evidence and showed before the Courts below that the
respondent no.2 had advanced a further sum of Rs.18,000/- to the petitioner
by way of cheque bearing no.040147 dated 14.12.2019, and the same raised
sufficient doubt over the case of the respondent no.2 since he would not
have given any further amount to the petitioner, if he already had an
outstanding debt/ liability towards him. The learned counsel also submitted
that the respondent no.2 did not lead any evidence to prove the friendship
between him and the petitioner to prove why he would give him a friendly
loan without interest, or give him further sums of money. - Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in view of the
aforesaid lacunae, as also seeing the clear stance taken by the petitioner that
he had only taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent no.2 and duly
returned the same in daily instalments with interest, the petitioner was able
to rebut the presumption against him under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act,
and since the case of the respondent no.2 was not supported by any
evidence, his complaint ought to have been dismissed. Hence, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been
wrongly passed and is liable to be set aside by this Court. - Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 advanced his
submissions in support of the impugned order which, as per him, is detailed
and well-reasoned and has rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 138 NI Act, since all the necessary ingredients thereof were
duly established by the respondent no.2 with all the proofs thereof, being
the cheque [Ex.CW1/A], the returning memo dated 07.05.2019
[Ex.CW1/B] as well as the legal notice dated 04.06.2019 [Ex.CW1/C]
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 6 of 10
along with the registered-post receipt [Ex.CW1/D] and the tracking report
thereof [Ex.CW1/E (Colly)]. The learned counsel submitted that in view of
the above, coupled with non-denial of the cheque with his signature as well
as receipt of the legal notice dated 04.05.2019 by the petitioner, the
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act were rightly applied in
favour of the respondent no.2 by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court, which the petitioner was wholly unable to rebut in any
manner whatsoever. - Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 in this regard further
submitted that the defence urged by the petitioner was merely cursory
without any documentary evidence, since he neither showed any proof of
repayment of the loan amount, nor did he ever file any complaint with the
police to gain back the allegedly blank cheque being misused by the
respondent no.2. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat13
to submit that in the absence of any cogent evidence led by the petitioner to
rebut the legal presumption in favour of the respondent no.2, questions as
to the source of income of the respondent no.2 or the recording of the cash
transaction through receipts, notes, etc. are wholly irrelevant. Similarly, the
contentions of the petitioner qua non-filing of income tax returns, etc. also
do not dislodge the said legal presumption as held in Barun Kumar vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.14
. - Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that the
petitioner cannot draw any support from John K Abraham (supra) since
13 (2019) 18 SCC 106
14 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3498
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 7 of 10
there were material alterations made in the cheque therein as also there
were contradictions in the handwriting of the accused, whereas in the
present case, there is no discrepancy as to the issuance of the cheque and
the signatures of the petitioner, which have been duly admitted by the
petitioner himself. The learned counsel lastly relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johar & ors. vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.15
and the decision of this Court in Medha Patkar vs. V. K. Saxena16 to
submit that the ambit of interference by this Court in exercise of revisional
powers is extremely limited and cannot be invoked simply to substitute the
well-reasoned view taken by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court without any perversity. The learned counsel hence prayed
that the present petition be dismissed.
- Learned APP also supported the impugned order and the case
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: - Based on the pleadings and documents on record as also the
judgements cited and submissions made by learned counsels for the parties,
the prime issue for consideration is whether the impugned order upholding
the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act suffers from any
error/ infirmity/ illegality/ perversity or the like to bring the same within
the ambit of the present revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. - Sections 138 NI Act is a self-contained code requiring (1) a cheque
to be drawn by the drawer from an account maintained by him for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; and (2)
15 (2008) 3 SCC 423
16 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5089
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 8 of 10
presentation of the said cheque to the bank by the holder within a period of
six months from the date of drawing of such cheque; and (3) return of the
said cheque unpaid due to insufficiency of funds, etc.; and (4) a demand/
notice for repayment made by the holder to the drawer within a period of
30 days thereafter; and yet (5) failure by the drawer to make the repayment
within a period of 15 days from receipt of such notice. Encompassing all
the above, the drawer is deemed to have committed an offence under
Sections 138 NI Act and is liable to be punished as such.
- Section 138 read together with Sections 139 and 118 NI Act evinces
that when all the other criteria as above were fulfilled, a legal presumption
operated in favour of the respondent no.2 that the cheque was issued for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, and it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to prove otherwise for rebutting the said
legal presumption. The same has been repeatedly held to be the correct
position of law, including the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel (supra) relied on by learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 as also Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda17
. - Aside from bald denials/ bare statements/ unsubstantiated claims
regarding the actual loan amount being Rs.50,000/- which the petitioner
claimed to have returned with interest or that he issued a blank cheque as
security, this Court does not find even a shred of evidence or substantiation
thereto. Thus, the petitioner was unable to dislodge the statutory
presumption against him and prove that the cheque was not for a debt/
liability.
17 (2018) 8 SCC 165
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 9 of 10
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 1 of 10
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: July 09, 2026
% Pronounced on: July 22, 2026 - CRL.REV.P. 271/2024, CRL.M.A. 6083/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL)
349/2024
PARDEEP KUMAR …Petitioner
Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan (DHCLSC) and
Ms. Harsha, Advocates
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. …Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI
Himanshu, PS: Najafgarh
Mr. Sudeep Dey, Mr. Ajit Singh, Mr.
Gaurav Kajla, Mr. Anmol Singhal
and Mr. Joyjeet, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
- By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731
, the petitioner/ accused seeks setting aside of the
order dated 22.12.20232 passed by the learned ASJ-03, South-West
District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi3
in CA No.436/2023, whereby the
judgement on conviction dated 07.07.2023 as well as the order on sentence
dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned MM, South-West District, Dwarka
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 2 of 10
Courts, New Delhi4
in CC No.25171/2019 convicting the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18815
and sentencing him
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay
fine of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.2/ complainant, in default
whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two
months, was upheld.
BRIEF FACTS:
- Succinctly put, the respondent no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint
stating that a cheque bearing no.717458 dated 04.05.2019 for Rs.2,50,000/-
drawn on SBI, Jhajjar Chungi, Rohtak6
issued to him by the petitioner for
repayment of a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- in December
2017 was returned unpaid by the banker on 07.05.2019 with the remark
‘Account Closed’. This led to the respondent no.2 issuing a Legal Notice
dated 04.06.2019 to the petitioner to which neither was there any reply, nor
was the requisite amount paid by the petitioner within the statutory period
of 15 days. Thus, the respondent no.2 initiated proceedings under Section
138 of the NI Act against the petitioner before learned Trial Court. - Upon service therein, the petitioner denied having received any
amount in cash from the respondent no.2 and submitted that the actual loan
amount was only Rs.50,000/- by cheque, which, according to him, had
already been duly returned by him to the respondent no.2 with interest on a
daily basis amounting to about Rs.1,00,000/-. Though he agreed that the
cheque was signed by him, and that he had received the Legal Notice dated
04.06.2019 issued by respondent no.2 pursuant thereto, however it was his
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’
6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘cheque’
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 3 of 10
case that the said cheque had actually been given to the respondent no.2 as
a blank cheque only for the purpose of security and was later misused by
the respondent no.2.
- After taking due note of the aforesaid and other defenses, the
complete evidence on record and the final arguments, the learned Trial
Court held that all the necessary requisites of Section 138
7 NI Act were
made out against the petitioner, especially in view of the admitted issuance
of the cheque by the petitioner including his signatures as well as the
timelines involved of presentation of the cheque to the bank, dishonoring
due to closure of account, Legal Notice and filing of the complaint. The
learned Trial Court further found that the petitioner had been unable to
dislodge the statutory presumptions against him under Section(s) 1188
and
7 138. 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 be extended 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 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 of other liability” means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability.’
8 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.-Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made:-
(a) of consideration:-that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
[xxx xxx xxx]
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 4 of 10
1399 NI Act, particularly, since he failed to produce any evidence qua his
allegedly returning the loan amount with interest to the respondent no.2
through any transaction records or even cash receipts, as also qua any steps
taken by him to retrieve the allegedly blank cheque given by him to the
respondent no.2 as a security. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced in terms thereof. In a challenge thereto, both his conviction
as well as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner were upheld by the
learned Appellate Court by way of the impugned order.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
- In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous since both the Courts below failed to consider
that the respondent no.2 did not show any record of the cash amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly given by him to the petitioner through any receipts,
loan documents, books of accounts, income tax returns, etc., as also did not
show his financial capacity and/ or source of funds to lend the said amount
to the petitioner in the first place, hence, it was not established that the
cheque was issued by the petitioner to discharge any debt/ liability and he
could not have been convicted under Section 138 NI Act. The learned
counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
John K Abraham vs. Simon C Abraham10 as well as of this Court in
Irshad Ahmed vs. Sukhe Singh11 and Kulvinder Singh vs. Kafeel Ahmed12
in support thereof.
9 139. Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.’
10 2014 (2) SCC 236
11 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7811
12 2013 SCC OnLine Del 34
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 5 of 10
- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner led evidence and showed before the Courts below that the
respondent no.2 had advanced a further sum of Rs.18,000/- to the petitioner
by way of cheque bearing no.040147 dated 14.12.2019, and the same raised
sufficient doubt over the case of the respondent no.2 since he would not
have given any further amount to the petitioner, if he already had an
outstanding debt/ liability towards him. The learned counsel also submitted
that the respondent no.2 did not lead any evidence to prove the friendship
between him and the petitioner to prove why he would give him a friendly
loan without interest, or give him further sums of money. - Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in view of the
aforesaid lacunae, as also seeing the clear stance taken by the petitioner that
he had only taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent no.2 and duly
returned the same in daily instalments with interest, the petitioner was able
to rebut the presumption against him under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act,
and since the case of the respondent no.2 was not supported by any
evidence, his complaint ought to have been dismissed. Hence, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been
wrongly passed and is liable to be set aside by this Court. - Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 advanced his
submissions in support of the impugned order which, as per him, is detailed
and well-reasoned and has rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 138 NI Act, since all the necessary ingredients thereof were
duly established by the respondent no.2 with all the proofs thereof, being
the cheque [Ex.CW1/A], the returning memo dated 07.05.2019
[Ex.CW1/B] as well as the legal notice dated 04.06.2019 [Ex.CW1/C]
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 6 of 10
along with the registered-post receipt [Ex.CW1/D] and the tracking report
thereof [Ex.CW1/E (Colly)]. The learned counsel submitted that in view of
the above, coupled with non-denial of the cheque with his signature as well
as receipt of the legal notice dated 04.05.2019 by the petitioner, the
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act were rightly applied in
favour of the respondent no.2 by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court, which the petitioner was wholly unable to rebut in any
manner whatsoever. - Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 in this regard further
submitted that the defence urged by the petitioner was merely cursory
without any documentary evidence, since he neither showed any proof of
repayment of the loan amount, nor did he ever file any complaint with the
police to gain back the allegedly blank cheque being misused by the
respondent no.2. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat13
to submit that in the absence of any cogent evidence led by the petitioner to
rebut the legal presumption in favour of the respondent no.2, questions as
to the source of income of the respondent no.2 or the recording of the cash
transaction through receipts, notes, etc. are wholly irrelevant. Similarly, the
contentions of the petitioner qua non-filing of income tax returns, etc. also
do not dislodge the said legal presumption as held in Barun Kumar vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.14
. - Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that the
petitioner cannot draw any support from John K Abraham (supra) since
13 (2019) 18 SCC 106
14 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3498
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 7 of 10
there were material alterations made in the cheque therein as also there
were contradictions in the handwriting of the accused, whereas in the
present case, there is no discrepancy as to the issuance of the cheque and
the signatures of the petitioner, which have been duly admitted by the
petitioner himself. The learned counsel lastly relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johar & ors. vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.15
and the decision of this Court in Medha Patkar vs. V. K. Saxena16 to
submit that the ambit of interference by this Court in exercise of revisional
powers is extremely limited and cannot be invoked simply to substitute the
well-reasoned view taken by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court without any perversity. The learned counsel hence prayed
that the present petition be dismissed.
- Learned APP also supported the impugned order and the case
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: - Based on the pleadings and documents on record as also the
judgements cited and submissions made by learned counsels for the parties,
the prime issue for consideration is whether the impugned order upholding
the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act suffers from any
error/ infirmity/ illegality/ perversity or the like to bring the same within
the ambit of the present revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. - Sections 138 NI Act is a self-contained code requiring (1) a cheque
to be drawn by the drawer from an account maintained by him for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; and (2)
15 (2008) 3 SCC 423
16 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5089
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 8 of 10
presentation of the said cheque to the bank by the holder within a period of
six months from the date of drawing of such cheque; and (3) return of the
said cheque unpaid due to insufficiency of funds, etc.; and (4) a demand/
notice for repayment made by the holder to the drawer within a period of
30 days thereafter; and yet (5) failure by the drawer to make the repayment
within a period of 15 days from receipt of such notice. Encompassing all
the above, the drawer is deemed to have committed an offence under
Sections 138 NI Act and is liable to be punished as such.
- Section 138 read together with Sections 139 and 118 NI Act evinces
that when all the other criteria as above were fulfilled, a legal presumption
operated in favour of the respondent no.2 that the cheque was issued for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, and it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to prove otherwise for rebutting the said
legal presumption. The same has been repeatedly held to be the correct
position of law, including the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel (supra) relied on by learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 as also Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda17
. - Aside from bald denials/ bare statements/ unsubstantiated claims
regarding the actual loan amount being Rs.50,000/- which the petitioner
claimed to have returned with interest or that he issued a blank cheque as
security, this Court does not find even a shred of evidence or substantiation
thereto. Thus, the petitioner was unable to dislodge the statutory
presumption against him and prove that the cheque was not for a debt/
liability.
17 (2018) 8 SCC 165
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 9 of 10
- On the other hand, when all the essential ingredients were duly
proved by respondent no.2 in the form of the cheque, the returning memo
dated 07.05.2019 and the Legal Notice dated 04.06.2019 with the
registered-post receipt and the tracking report thereof, as also considering
the non-response and non-compliance thereto by the petitioner, and in the
absence of anything cogent shown by the petitioner, the petitioner was
rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court, which was then rightly upheld
by the learned Appellate Court by way of the impugned order. - Considering the aforesaid in mind, rest of the contentions qua the
source of funds and financial capacity of the respondent no.2, his books of
accounts, transaction records or income tax returns, or any subsequent
amount of money advanced by him to the petitioner as sought to be urged
by learned counsel for the petitioner, pale into insignificance, particularly
taking into account the non-discharge of the onus upon the petitioner under
Section 139 NI Act, which has already dealt with in detail by the Courts
below.
CONCLUSION: - In light of the afore-going, especially the well-reasoned and detailed
analysis by the Courts below, finding no error/ infirmity/ illegality/
perversity or the like in the impugned order, no interference is required
therewith. - Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the
learned ASJ-03, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CA
No.436/2023 upholding the judgement on conviction dated 07.07.2023 as
well as the order on sentence dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned MM,
CRL.REV.P. 271/2024 Page 10 of 10
South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CC No.25171/2019 are
upheld. - The petitioner be sent to judicial custody to serve the remainder of
his sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months as also
pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.2, in default whereof, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months, as
awarded vide order on sentence dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned
Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court. - As such, the present petition is dismissed.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
JULY 22, 2026/So