Delhi District Court
Ram Brij Kushwaha vs Chinta Devi on 18 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR: LD. ASJ-06,
SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 796/2025
CNR NO. DLST01-020516-2025
Criminal Appeal No. 797/2025
CNR NO. DLST01-020517-2025
Criminal Appeal No. 798/2025
CNR NO. DLST01-020518-2025
Criminal Appeal No. 800/2025
CNR NO. DLST01-020519-2025
Ram Brij Kushwaha
S/o. Sh. Shiv Charan Khushwaha
R/o. H. No. C-106, Rajpur Khurd Colony,
North Extension, Chattarpur,
New Delhi-110068.
. . . . Appellant
VERSUS
Chinta Devi
S/o. Sh. Ram Lal Mehto
R/o C-10, Rajpur Khurd Colony,
Near Brahmkumari Ashram,
New Delhi-110068.
. . . . Respondent
Instituted on : 20.12.2025
Reserved on : 18.03.2026
Digitally
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026 Pawan
signed by
Pawan
Kumar
Kumar Date:
2026.03.23
CA No. 796/2025 16:34:45
+0530
CA No. 797/2025
CA No. 798/2025
CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 1 of 22
JUDGEMENT
01. The revisionist has filed four revision petitions no. 796/2025, 797/2025, 798/2025 and 800/2025 challenging the judgements of acquittal passed by Ld. JMFC (NI Act) DIGITAL Court-02, South District, New Delhi in the corresponding complaint cases bearing nos. 1437/2021 (CA No. 796/2025), 1440/2021 (CA No. 797/2025), 1441/2021 (CA No. 798/2025) & 1445/2021 (CA No. 800/2025) all titled as Ram Brij Kushwaha v. Chinta Devi, U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The aforesaid complaints were filed regarding four cheques statedly issued by the respondent. The cheques were issued in the same transaction. The cause of action of all the complaints arises out of the same transaction and I deem it appropriate to dispose off the aforementioned revision petitions vide common judgement.
02. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment titled and reported as Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran: 2025 SCC Online SC 1320, held that judgment of acquittal in complaint case u/s 138 NI Act can be challenged in appeal before Session Court. It is observed that complainant in the case of complaint u/s 138 NI Act is an aggrieved party, who suffered economic loss owing to dishonor of cheque and he is qualified as a 'vicitm' as defined in the provision of Cr.P.C. It is held that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the provisio to section 372 of Cr.P.C. and he can file appeal against an Pawan Kumar CA No. 796/2025 Digitally signed CA No. 797/2025 by Pawan Kumar Date: 2026.03.23 CA No. 798/2025 16:34:51 +0530 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 2 of 22 order of acquittal without seeking leave to appeal u/s 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
03. Brief facts as discernible from Trial Court record may be taken note of: the appellant (hereinafter as referred as 'the complainant') and the respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the accused') are known to each other and on 24.05.2016, the accused approached the complainant for loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lac) and promised to repay the same within period of 11 months. The complainant advanced the loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused and her husband at the rate of 3.5% per month for the period of 11 months. At the time of loan transaction, a loan agreement cum mortgage deed dated 24.05.2016 was executed between the complainant and the accused and her husband. The accused had deposited title documents of her property to the complainant as security. The accused did not pay the loan amount within the agreed period and after lot of persuasion and requests, the accused had issued four cheques bearing no. 497120 for a sum of Rs. 11,55,000/- (Crl. Rev. No. 796/2025) and cheques bearing nos. 497102 (Crl. Rev. No. 797/2025), 682203 (Crl. Rev. No. 798/2025) & 682202 (Crl. Rev. No. 800/2025) all dated 28.01.2021 for a sum of Rs. 02 lac each, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rajpur Khurd Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'the cheques in question') in favour of the complainant and the same are subject matter of these petitions. On presentation, the cheques in question were got dishonoured on the grounds of 'Funds Insufficient' Pawan CA No. 796/2025 Kumar Digitally signed CA No. 797/2025 by Pawan Kumar CA No. 798/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 16:34:57 +0530 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 3 of 22 vide cheques returning memo dated 01.02.2021. The complainant served the accused with the legal notices dated 08.02.2021. The accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated time of receiving the demand notice and accordingly, the complaints were filed against the accused.
04. The trial court record transpires that post summoning and upon completion of necessary formalities, Ld Trial Court served notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C upon the appellant to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The plea of defence as taken by the accused at that stage is being reproduced for the sake of convenience;
" I have understood the notice put forward to me and I plead not guilty and claim trial. I admit my signatures on the cheque but other details were not filled in by me. I had taken loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- from the complainant which I have already repaid back alongwith interest of Rs. 2,36,250/-. No loan agreement was executed between me and the complainant and the above mentioned loan was given on oral agreement. The cheque was given as a security which has been misused by the complainant. After repaying the entire loan amount alongwith interest, I demanded from complainant to return my security cheques and original property papers but he did not do so. I have already filed many police complaints regarding the same, the copies of which have been filed alongwith my NBW cancellation application. I have also filed copy of receipts signed by the complainant at the time of receiving back the loan amount alongwith interest. I did not receive any legal demand notice or any other notice from the complainant."
05. Record further transpires that in post summoning evidence, the complainant has examined himself in the complainant evidence. CW-1/complainant deposed on line of his complaint and relied upon Pawan CA No. 796/2025 Kumar CA No. 797/2025 Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar CA No. 798/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 16:35:03 +0530 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 4 of 22 following documents :-
a) Copy of loan agreement dated 24.05.2016 Ex.CW1/A;
b) Copy of GPA dated 20.12.20212 Ex. CW1/B;
c) Copy of agreement to sell dated 20.12.2012 Ex. CW1/C;
d) Copy of affidavit dated 20.12.2012 Ex. CW1/D;
e) Copy of Will dated 20.12.2012 Ex. CW1/E;
f) Copy of possession letter Ex. CW1/F;
g) Cheques in question Ex. CW1/G;
h) Return memo dated 01.02.2021 Ex. CW1/H;
i) Legal demand notice Ex.CW1/I;
j) Postal receipt dated 08.02.2021 Ex. CW1/J;
k) Tracking report Ex.CW1/K; &
l) Hand written 02 pages of diary Ex. DW1/X (colly) (OSR);
06. Trial Court record further reveals that in the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, she admitted her signature on the cheques in question but other details were not filed by her. She further explained that she had taken loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- from the complainant in the year 2016 for the payment of her other debt taken from Krishna Avatar. She further stated that she asked the complainant for Rs. 6 lac, however, only Rs. 2,70,000/- were given directly in the hands of Krishna Avatar in the house of Jai Prakash Bhagat at her instance. She further stated that being illiterate, she was not aware about the content of the agreement. At the time of loan, her property Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar Kumar Date:
CA No. 796/20252026.03.23 16:35:11 +0530 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 5 of 22 documents were also taken by the complainant as security. Her thumb impressions were taken on agreement for the loan transaction which was prepared by the complainant. She had already repaid the loan of Rs. 2,70,000/-. She denied to have received any legal demand notice. The accused denied the execution of the agreement Ex.CW1/A.
07. In the defence evidence, the accused has examined herself as a defence witness/ DW-1, her husband Ram Lal Mahto as DW-2 and Sh. Jai Prakash Khushwaha as DW-3.
07(A). DW-1/accused Chinta Devi deposed that she had put her signature on the cheques in question but other details are not filled by her. She further deposed that she had taken loan of Rs.2,70,000/- from the complainant in the year 2016 and had repaid the same by the end of 2018. She further deposed that the complainant had taken her cheques and some papers and she had lodged a complaint to the police.
07(B). DW-2 Ram Lal Mehto deposed that a loan amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was given by the complainant in the presence of Jai Prakash, Indu Devi (wife of Jai Prakash), Pandit Ji and his brother. The said transaction took place in the house of Jai Prakash, when the said money was given to Pandey ji (Krishna Avtar). He further deposed that since Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar the complainant did not return the cheques in question and the property Kumar Date:
2026.03.23 16:35:48 +0530 CA No. 796/2025 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 6 of 22 papers, they made a police complaint wherein the complainant admitted that full and final payment has been made and the complainant has submitted the receipts regarding the same in the police station and same are part of the judicial record of the complaint case. He further deposed that the abovesaid loan amount has been paid alongwith interest @ 3.5% per month. He further deposed that a false case has been filed against the accused. He further deposed that Mr. Pandey is known to the complainant who is also involved in lending money at higher rate of interest and also indulged in doing property dealings.
07(C). DW-3 Jai Prakash Khushwaha deposed that the accused had taken loan of Rs. 3 lac from Krishan Avtar Pandey @ 5% per month against her property documents. On the request of the accused, the witness asked the complainant for loan on lesser rate of interest and the complainant agreed to advance loan of Rs. 3 lac to the accused @ 3.5 % per month. Krishan Avtar Pandey agreed to take Rs. 2.70 lac against the full and final settlement. The complainant paid Rs. 2.70,000/- to Krishan Avtar Pandey and had taken the property documents of the accused. The complainant had also taken cheques from the accused against the said loan amount. An agreement between the accused and the complainant had been executed regarding the said loan amount. The witness further deposed that he, the accused and her husband had signed the said agreement without going through the Pawan CA No. 796/2025 Kumar CA No. 797/2025 Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar CA No. 798/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 7 of 22 16:35:55 +0530 contents of the same. The witness further deposed that after 10-15 days, the accused informed him that on agreement, Rs. 6 lac was written in place of Rs. 2.70 lac and when he confronted the same to the complainant, he told that he had mentioned Rs. 6 lac on the agreement for further advancement of loan to the accused. He further deposed that the complainant had forcefully taken the possession of the property of the accused and thereafter, the accused has filed complaint against the complainant and on the intervention of the police, the accused reclaimed her possession of the said property. He further deposed that the accused had only taken loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- @ 3.5% from the complainant and not Rs. 6 lac and that the transaction of advancement of loan of Rs.
2,70,000/- to the accused took place in his house.
08. Ld Trial Court vide impugned judgment observed that accused has successfully rebutted the presumption in favour of the complainant under section 139 NI Act. The Ld. Trial Court further observed that the complainant failed to prove that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. Ld. Trial court found the respondent/accused not guilty of offence under section 138 NI Act and acquitted him vide impugned judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal.
09. The appellant/complainant is aggrieved with the said Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar Kumar Date:
CA No. 796/2025 2026.03.23
16:36:00
+0530
CA No. 797/2025
CA No. 798/2025
CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 8 of 22
judgment and has assailed the same vide instant appeal. The sum and substance of arguments advanced on behalf of appellant/convict are as under :-
i) That Ld Trial Court failed to consider the material / evidence available on record and the impugned judgment is bad in law being contrary to the fact and evidence on record;
ii) That Ld Trial Court has wrongly observed that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption by ignoring the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant;
iii) The Ld Trial court failed to appreciate that after the execution of cheques in question being admitted by the accused, there is a presumption as to the legally enforceable debt or liability and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption;
iv) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that the accused has taken inconsistent defence in the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
and further in the evidence led by the complainant and the defence;
v) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that varied and inconsistent defence of the accused failed to rebut the presumption even on the preponderance of probability;
vi) That Ld Trial Court failed to consider that the accused has admitted her liability in the written agreement Ex.CW1/A and no oral evidence contrary to the content of the written agreement is permissible as per Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act;
vii) That the impugned judgement passed by Ld. Trial Court is based upon the assumptions and supposition without any legal basis.
10. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. I shall now examine whether the case of appellant/complainant stands proved Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar CA No. 796/2025 Kumar Date:
2026.03.23 CA No. 797/2025 16:36:05 +0530 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 9 of 22 beyond all reasonable doubts or respondent/accused deserves benefit of doubt ?
11. Before entering into factual matrix of the present case, I deem it fit to discuss certain statutory provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 118 (A) of NI Act provides for presumptions regarding consideration for a Negotiable Instrument. It reads as under :
"That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
12. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as under :
"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, or any debt or other liability".
13. In Hiten P Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3897, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the defence submission that the cheques were not drawn for the discharge in whole or in the part of any debt or other liability is answered by the third presumption available to the banks U/s 139 of the NI Act. This section provides that "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Pawan CA No. 796/2025 Kumar Digitally signed CA No. 797/2025 by Pawan Kumar CA No. 798/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 16:36:11 +0530 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 10 of 22 Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability". The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential burden on the defence of proving that the cheque was not received by the bank towards the discharge of any liability.
14. In Kumar Exports Vs Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 513, it has been held in para 20 :- "The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the prosecution in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof Pawan shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused Kumar Digitally signed CA No. 796/2025 by Pawan Kumar CA No. 797/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 16:36:18 +0530 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 11 of 22 should bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist......................".
15. In case titled, "Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal" (1999) 3 SCC 35, while interpreting Section 118 (a) of the Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court opined, "Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 (a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including Pawan CA No. 796/2025 Kumar CA No. 797/2025 Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar CA No. 798/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 12 of 22 16:36:24 +0530 that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118 (a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt."
16. In another case titled, "K. Prakashan Vs. P. K. Surenderan" 2007 IX AD (S.C.) 334 Hon'ble Supreme Court opined, "
The Act raises two presumptions; firstly in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) therein and, secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. Presumptions both under Sections 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Having regard to the definition of terms proved and disproved as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also the nature of said burden upon the prosecution vis a vis an accused it is not necessary that the accused must step into the witness box to discharge the burden of proof in terms of the aforementioned provision. It is furthermore not in doubt or dispute that whereas the standard of proof so far as the prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all Pawan Kumar Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar Date: 2026.03.23 CA No. 796/2025 16:36:51 +0530 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 13 of 22 reasonable doubt; the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of probability. "
17. It is admitted as well as proved the cheques in question were signed by the respondent. In the plea of defence taken by the accused in the notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., she denied any liability qua cheques in question and stated that the cheques were issued as a security for repayment of other loan and the complainant had misused the cheques despite payment of the said loan.
18. The execution of the cheques in question is admitted by the accused. It is argued on behalf of accused that there was no existing legally recoverable debt or liability towards the accused. Since the execution of cheques in question was not in dispute, therefore, the burden to rebut the presumption of liability is upon the accused.
19. It is the settled preposition of law that presumption under Section 118 and 139 Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable presumption and the accused can rebut the same on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The accused can rebut the presumption either by way of cross examination of complainant witness or by leading defence evidence.
Digitally
signed by
CA No. 796/2025 Pawan
Pawan
Kumar
CA No. 797/2025 Kumar Date:
2026.03.23
CA No. 798/2025 16:36:56
+0530
CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 14 of 22
20. The consistent defence of the accused is that the cheques in question were not issued qua the loan in question rather, she had taken loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- from the complainant and repaid the same and the cheques were given as security at the time of that loan. In the plea of defence under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the accused explained that the loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- was taken from the complainant and she had repaid the same with interest. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in the defence evidence, the accused has changed her stand to the effect that the loan was taken to repay the loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- taken from other person namely Krishan Avtar. On careful perusal of testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the accused has not taken the inconsistent defence, rather she had explained the defence taken in the plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and clarified that prior to the loan from the complainant, the accused had taken a loan from Krishan Avtar at the rate of 5% per month and on the request of DW-3, the complainant advanced loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- to the accused to repay the loan of Krishan Avtar at the rate of 3.5% per month.
21. As per the complaint, the complainant had advanced loan of Rs. 6 lac for a period of 11 months vide written agreement cum mortgage deed dated 24.05.2016. The complaint and affidavit of evidence further record that the accused did not pay the loan amount on Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar the agreed date and thereafter, upon persistent pursuance and Kumar Date:
2026.03.23 16:37:01 +0530 CA No. 796/2025 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 15 of 22 painstaking efforts of the complainant, the accused had issued four cheques for total sum of Rs. 17,55,000/- (03 cheques of Rs. 2 lac each and 01 cheque of Rs. 11,55,000/-) on 28.01.2021.
22. The complaint and the evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant clearly transpired that the accused had issued four cheques in January 2021 in discharge of liability towards him. The complainant has heavily relied upon the loan agreement cum mortgage deed Ex.CW1/A. Para No. 2 of the loan agreement Ex.CW1/A records that the accused had handed over three post dated cheques bearing no. 682201 to 682203 for Rs. 2 lac each drawn on Syndicate Bank (two cheques i.e. 682202 and 682203 are the subject cheques in two of the complaints). This term of loan agreement is contrary to the case of the complainant that the cheques in question were issued in 2021.
23. The loan agreement categorically recorded that the aforementioned cheques were issued as post dated cheques and it means the dates on the aforesaid cheques were mentioned at the time of loan agreement. It is pertinent to note that the alleged loan was given for 11 months and therefore, the post dated cheques should have been of the date after 11 months of the loan in question. There is no explanation of issuance of post dated cheques of the year 2021 at the time of loan agreement in 2016. Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar Kumar Date:
CA No. 796/2025 2026.03.23
16:37:10
CA No. 797/2025 +0530
CA No. 798/2025
CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 16 of 22
24. The defence of the accused is corroborated by 03 hand written receipts Ex.CW-1/D1. The receipts were confronted to the complainant in his cross examination and he had admitted his signatures on it. The receipts record the payment of Rs. 4,29,000/- being paid by the accused to the complainant. The complainant vaguely stated the receipts being tampered and in the same vein, he stated to have issued the receipts for some other transaction. The complainant could not give the detail of transaction pertaining to those receipts. The Ld. Trial Court has observed in the cross examination that despite being explained by the Court and counsel for the complainant, the witness/CW-1 could not give any coherent reply of the stated transaction.
25. The testimony of the accused/DW-1 and other witnesses indicates that prior to the presentation of the cheques in question, the accused had filed police complaints against the complainant with the allegation of wrongful possession of the property mentioned in the mortgage deed/Ex.CW-1/A. It is pertinent to note that the cheques in question were presented after filing of the police complaint by the accused against the complainant. The police complaint were annexed with the application for cancellation of bail and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly rejected the objection of the complainant regarding the police complaint Ex.DW-1/1. The police complaint records that the Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.03.23 16:37:16 +0530 CA No. 796/2025 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 17 of 22 complainant had taken cheques and original documents of the property of the accused at the time of advancing loan of Rs. 2,70,000/-. In the testimony of the complainant, it is tranpired that there were certain complaints in the police station in which the complainant undertook to return the original documents of the property on the repayment of the loan. It is relevant to record that the cheques in question were presented after filing of the complaint by the accused in the police station.
26. The second limb of arguments of the accused is that the cheques in questions were issued for time barred debt and the same cannot be considered in discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. One of the essential ingredient of offence under Section 138 NI Act is that the cheque should have been issued for the discharge of any debt or any other liability. The cheques in question dated 28.01.2021 were issued qua loan in question dated 24.05.2016. The loan was given for period of 11 months. The limitation period for suit for recovery of money is 03 years. It is clearly established that the cheques were issued after expiry of the limitation period and the debt is time barred.
27. There are certain conditions in which the limitation period can be extended and one of the ground is the written acknowledgement within the prescribed period. In the present case, there is no such written acknowledgement, which may lead to the extension of limitation period. Pawan Kumar CA No. 796/2025 Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar CA No. 797/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 CA No. 798/2025 16:37:22 +0530 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 18 of 22
28. Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act provides that time barred debt can be recovered, if a written and signed promise has been made by the concerned person to pay the time barred debt. While the time barred debt is not enforceablel, Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act creates an exception. Written promise such as a cheque signed by the debtor constitutes valid consideration for a time barred debt and consequently, the liability under Section 138 NI Act squarely arises upon the dishonour of a cheque towards a time barred debt. (Re. Rati Ram Yadav Vs. Gopal Sharma 2025 SCC OnLine RAJ 5241).
29. The provision of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act is applicable when the written signed promise is made to pay the time barred debt. In the instant case, it is recorded in the written agreement Ex.CW-1/A that three post dated cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each were given by the accused at the time of loan agreement and as such there is no written promise in the form of signed cheques to pay the time barred debt. Therefore, Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act is of no help to the complainant.
30. It is a settle preposition of law that the cheques having been issued by the accused for the debt being barred by limitation does not attract the penal provision of Section 138 of NI Act. In the judgement of Pawan CA No. 796/2025 Kumar CA No. 797/2025 Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar CA No. 798/2025 Date: 2026.03.23 16:37:28 +0530 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 19 of 22 the Apex Court in the case of Sasseriyil Joseph v. Devassia 2012 Crl. J. 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the observation of the lower Appellate Court on the issue that the provision of offence under Section 138 NI Act is not applicable in case of cheque being issued for time barred debt. The factual matrix of this case is squarely covered by the legal proposition that the offence of Section 138 NI Act is not made out if the debt is barred by limitation and the same cannot be treated as legally recoverable debt or liability.
31. The scope of interference by the appellate court in an order of acquittal is beautifully summed up in the judgment titled and reported as Ramesh v. State of Haryana, 2016 Supreme Court Online 0109, PLRonline # 310901, the court held :
24. The appellate court, therefore, is within its power to re appreciate or review the evidence on which the acquittal is based. On reconsideration of the evidence on record, if the appellate court finds the verdict of acquittal to be perverse or against the settled position of law, it is duly empowered to set aside the same.
On the other hand, if the trial court had appreciated the evidence in right perspective and recorded the findings which are plausible and the view of the trial court does not suffer from perversity, simply because the appellate court comes to a different conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence on record, it will not substitute its findings to that of findings recorded by the trial court.
Digitally
signed by
Pawan
CA No. 796/2025 Pawan Kumar
CA No. 797/2025 Kumar Date:
2026.03.23
16:37:34
CA No. 798/2025 +0530
CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 20 of 22
25. In the instant case, we find that the High Court has interfered on the ground that the very approach of the trial court in appreciating the evidence on record was legally unsustainable. If such observations of the High Court are correct, it was fully justified in interjecting with the verdict of the trial court.
32. In the case Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2016) 4 SCC 357; the Apex Court observed that;
20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
33. In the instant case, the accused/respondent has been able to raise probable defence on the basis of preponderence of probablilities. The accused had raised sufficient doubts over the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability qua the cheques in question. There are inconsistencies and contradictions as to the date of issuance of cheques in question. There are material inconsistencies and contradiction in the testimony of the complainant and sufficient to raise doubt over his Digitally signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.03.23 CA No. 796/2025 16:37:42 +0530 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 21 of 22 version. The accused has successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act and the revisionist/complainant failed to establish the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
34. With these observations, on considering the evidence and the material available on record, I do not find any perversity of fact or law in the impugned judgments of acquittal passed by Ld. Trial Court. There is no occasion to interfere with the findings and the conclusion given by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgement. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. Pawan Kumar Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar Date: 2026.03.23 16:37:51 +0530 Announced in the open (PAWAN KUMAR) Court on 18th March 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-06, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CA No. 796/2025 CA No. 797/2025 CA No. 798/2025 CA No. 800/2025 Ram Brij Khuswaha v. Chinta Devi Page 22 of 22