Delhi District Court
M/S. Pradeep B/M Supplier vs Ravi Chauhan on 16 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Criminal Complaint No.: 24739/2019
M/S. Pradeep B/M Supplier through
proprietor Sh. Pradeep Dagar ......... Complainant
Versus
Ravi Chauhan ......... Accused
1. Name & address of the complainant: : Office At K 709, K-2
Block, Near Mata
Chowk, Mahipalpur
Extension, Vasant Kunj,
Mehrauli Road, New
Delhi 110037.
2. Name & address of the accused : House No 110, Arjum
Camp, Mahipalpur, New
Delhi-110037
3. Offence complained of : U/S 138, The
Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881.
4. Date of Institution of case : 08.07.2019.
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Conviction
7. Date of decision : 16.03.2026.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 1/17
DIVYA Digitally signed
by DIVYA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.03.16
16:02:13 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case as filed by the complainant, M/S. Pradeep B/M Supplier through proprietor Sh. Pradeep Dagar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against accused Ravi Chauhan, (hereinafter referred to as the accused). The present complaint has been filed against the accused u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. The brief facts as alleged by the complainant in his complaint are that the accused used to purchase cement from the complainant on credit basis from time to time against the bills/invoices by the complainant to the accused. As per the statement of account being maintained by complainant in respect of the purchase and payments made by the accused, a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- is due and outstanding against the accused as on 07.04.2019. The complainant repeatedly requested accused to clear the abovesaid due and outstanding amount. However, accused have been avoiding complainant. Thereafter, after much persuasions, accused issued one cheque (cheque in question) bearing no 000023, dated 27.04.2019, Rs. 3,20,000/- drawn at HDFC Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and further assured the complainant that the same shall be honoured on presentation. When complainant presented the above- mentioned cheque in question the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant vide cheque returning memo dated 03.05.2019 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 2/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:18 +0530
3. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal demand notice upon the accused through his counsel on 20.05.2019 and upon the expiry of statutory period when accused failed to make the payment of cheque in question, complainant had filed the present complaint case.
4. In order to prove his case, complainant in the pre-summoning evidence, examined himself as CW1 by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied upon following documents which are as follows:
1) Ex.CW1/1 colly is copy of bills/invoices raised by the complainant.
2) Ex. CW1/2 is copy of ledger account/statement of account maintained by the complainant.
3) Ex. CW1/3 is the cheque in question.
4) Ex.CW-1/4 is the cheque returning memo.
5) Ex.CW1/5 is the copy of legal notice
6) Ex.CW1/6 is the postal receipts.
7) Ex. CW1/7 and Ex. CW1/8 is the proof of delivery/tracking report of Speed
post and undelivered envelope.
5. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence and upon finding prima facie case against the accused, pre-summoning evidence was concluded on 08.07.2019 and summons were issued to accused on the very same day.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 3/17 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA SINGH Date: 2026.03.16 SINGH 16:02:22 +0530
6. Thereafter Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against both the accused on accused on 07.03.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused admitted taking the loan of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. He had given his blank signed cheque as security to the complainant. He has already repaid the aforesaid loan amount and he do not owe any liability for the cheque amount in question. Accused admitted receiving of legal demand notice.
7. Thereafter, complainant examined him as CW-1, was cross-examined and discharged on 25.07.2023 and matter was fixed for recording of SA.
8. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded against both the accused persons on 25.07.2023 wherein all the incriminating evidence were put before the accused wherein admitted issuing the cheque in question in blank signed manner. He has taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant which he had already been paid with interest. Accused admitted receiving of legal notice.
9. While recording statement of account u/ 313 Cr.P.C, accused submitted that he wish to lead DE.
10.Thereafter, accused examined him as DW-1, was cross-examined and discharged.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 4/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:25 +0530
11.Thereafter, he also examined Sh. Sh. Narender as DW-2 and Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh as DW-3, DW-2 and DW-3 were cross examined and discharged and vide separate statement accused closes his DE on22.09.2025 and the matter was fixed for D.E.
12.Final arguments were concluded and record of the case and evidence of both the parties was thoroughly perused.
13.In the final arguments, the counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has been able to prove all the ingredients u/s 138 NI Act which stood corroborated by the documentary evidence led in the evidence. The counsel for complainant further submitted that accused has not brought any defence and has neither rebutted the presumption arising in favour of the complainant in terms of Section 118 & 139 of NI Act in as much as testimony of complainant has remained uncontroverted in material particulars.
14.On the other hand, counsel for accused has orally argued his case and in his arguments, it is stated that there were many contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and as such complainant has not been able to prove any liability of the accused.
15.Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic provision of Section 138 of NI Act,1881. In order to ascertain whether CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 5/17 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.16 16:02:29 +0530 accused has committed offence u/s 138 NI Act the following ingredients have to be proved which are as follows:
"A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability; cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
That cheque has been 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;
The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has made 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; and 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 said notice".
16.The Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (AIR 2001 SC 3897), observed as follows:
"Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amounts for which the cheque are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, (AIR 1958 SC 61), it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused (ibid)."
17.Thus, as laid down in catena of decisions it is an established law that onus lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 6/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:33 +0530 in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being preponderance of probability. Therefore, it becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Section 118 & 139 of NI Act.
18.Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence u/s 138 NI Act. This criminal liability can be attached by proving each of the elements of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced. I shall now go on to appreciate the evidence, documentary or oral, in the light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if it all.
Appreciation of Evidence and finding:
19.In the present matter, the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason 'funds insufficient' on 03.05.2019. The record, complainant has brought to substantiate his point are the cheque dated 27.04.2019 as Ex. CW1/3, cheque return memo dated 03.05.2019 as Ex. CW1/4. The legal demand notice dated Ex. CW1/5, Postal receipt and Tracking report Ex. CW1/6 and Ex. CW1/7
20.The first condition as per Section 138 NI Act pertains to the issuance of cheque in question to make payment from an account maintained by the drawer of the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 7/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:37 +0530 Also, In the facts of the present case, the signature on the cheque in question and the issuance of the cheque has not been denied by accused and accordingly, this court raises presumption under section 118(a) r/w section 139 of NI Act that the cheque in question were issued by accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is now on the accused to raise a probable defence and to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
In this regard the following judgment can be relied upon:
21.In the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 309], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the NI Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability."
22.In the present case, the primary defence that the accused has taken is that there is no legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant and against him as he has issued the cheque in question for the purpose of security.
23.At the time of framing of notice under section 251 Crpc on 07.03.2020, the accused stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and in lieu of the same had given a blank signed cheque as security to the CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 8/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:41 +0530 complainant. A suggestion was also given by the ld. counsel for the accused during the cross-examination of complainant on 25th of July 2023, that the complainant used to take security cheques against the loan given to public person and that he had given loan to Mr. Pawan and Mr. Sanjay, and had also taken security cheque from them. No evidence has been brought on record by the accused to show that the cheque was issued only for the purpose of security to the complainant. Also, even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the cheque in question was issued for security purpose only then also Section 138 of NI Act does not distinguish between a cheque issued by the debtor in discharge of an existing debt or other liability, or a cheque issued as a security cheque.
24.Reliance can be placed upon the judgement in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sripati Singh (Since Deceased) Through ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow."
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 9/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:49 +0530
25.Reliance can also be placed upon the judgement in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabbir & Anr. reported in AIR 10 2002 SC 3014, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows.
".........The commencement of the Section stands with the words "where any cheque". The above noted three words are of extreme significance, in particular, by reason of the user of the word "any" the first three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the highlighted words if read with the first three words at the commencement of Section 138, leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reason it may be, the liability under this provision cannot be avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well."
26.Thus, even if the dishonoured cheque in question was issued as a security cheque, it will still come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, the defence of the accused that cheque in question was issued as security cheque has no force. Also, for proving the fact that the cheque in question was given by the accused in a blank signed cheque manner for the purpose of security to the complainant, in discharge of his liability, accused has not brought on record any material or record as already discussed above.
27.Another defence taken by the accused is that he has taken an amount of Rs. 20,000/- only from the complainant and has already returned the entire amount.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 10/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:53 +0530
28.The accused during the framing of notice under section 251 CRPC on 7 th of March 2020 stated that he has already repaid the loan amount of ₹20,000 and does not owe any liability towards the complainant for the cheque amount, the accused has already returned the amount of Rs 20,000 which was taken as loan and that the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant to extort money. Further, during the cross-examination of complainant on 25th of July 2023, ld counsel for the accused had also given a suggestion to the complainant that the complainant had taken cheque in question as security from the accused person and lent the money of ₹20,000 only. Further in order to prove his defence accused has examined himself as DW-1 and two Defence witness namely, Mr. Narender as DW-2 and Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh as DW-3.
29.In his examination in chief the accused stated that he had taken personal loan from the complainant for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and had already repaid the complete loan amount to the complainant.
30.DW 2 Mr. Narender in his examination in chief on 10th of July 2025 has stated that accused had taken an amount of ₹50,000 from Mr Pradeep in his presence about 8 to 9 years ago and has returned the amount in instalments and as per him an amount of ₹5000 was pending towards the complainant.\
31.DW3 Mr Pawan Kumar Singh also stated that the accused had taken an amount of ₹50,000 from Mr Pradeep, in his presence and only an amount of ₹5000 was pending.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 11/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.16 16:02:57 +0530
32.The defence taken by the accused cannot be relied upon. While the accused claims that he had taken only a loan of ₹20,000/- and has already returned the entire amount to the complainant, the defence witnesses DW-2 and DW- 3 have deposed on entirely different lines, as already discussed above both the witnesses have stated that accused took a loan of ₹50,000/- and that a sum of ₹5,000/- remained outstanding. These material inconsistencies have undoubtedly prejudiced the case of the accused and has rendered the defence version unreliable. Further, neither the accused nor the defence witness no.2 examined by the accused has brought anything substantive on record to show that the accused has repaid the loan amount. DW-3 also admitted during his cross-examination that he does not have any documentary proof to show that amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the accused in his presence.
33.The accused has merely stated that he has already returned the entire amount to the complainant. However, he has not produced any cogent proof to show that he had made the payments to the complainant. No receipt or any documentary evidence of the payments made has been filed by the accused during the entire course of trial. In support of his defence no bank account statement during the relevant period has been produced by the accused.
34.It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has himself admitted in his cross-examination dated 03.12.2024 that he had not filed any document to show repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He further admitted that CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 12/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:03:00 +0530 he had not made any written complaint regarding misuse of the cheque in question by the complainant and that he had not placed on record any document to show that he had demanded return of the cheque from the complainant through notice or any other mode. Merely stating that the complainant refused to return the cheque will not suffice. Also, throughout the course of trial, the accused did not whisper anything about the recourse that he took to procure back the cheque when he owed no liability towards the complainant. Failure to lodge or file any complaint regarding misuse of cheque by the complainant causes dubiety to lurk around the story of the defence. It will be utter disregard to the established principles of evidence, if this court accepts this oral evidence of accused devoid of any documentary evidence to concretize the proof.
35.Further the accused in his defence has also stated that the complainant was a money lender and used to take blank security cheques from borrowers. Even if this plea is taken then also it does not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumption. Also, no documentary material was produced by the accused or his witness to establish that the complainant was an unlicensed money lender carrying on illegal lending business. Court cannot rely upon the oral testimony devoid of merits to rebut the presumption arising in favour of the complainant.
36.Another defence is that no cement or building material was ever purchased by the accused from the complainant. This defence also does not inspire confidence. The complainant has stated that the invoices Ex. CW1/1 (colly) CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 13/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:03:04 +0530 pertained to cement/material supplied to the accused and that the business dealings continued till 2019. The accused in this regard has stated that all the bills and documents annexed with the complaint are forged and manipulated as there was no actual transaction that took place with the accused person. No evidence was led by the accused to show that the invoices relied upon by the complainant were false and fabricated. No forensic examination was sought, no complaint was lodged alleging forgery, and no contrary record was summoned by the accused in order to show that the bills and the invoices relied upon by the complainant were forged and fabricated. Mere suggestion in cross-examination that the complaint documents are forged cannot substitute proof. Therefore, this plea stands rejected.
37.Further, it is relevant to mention here that the cheque in question got dishonoured due to the reason "funds insufficient" shows that the accused was aware of the presentation of the cheque in question and he never undertook any steps to stop the misuse of the cheque or issued any instructions to his banker to stop the misuse of the cheque. Accused has not placed any material before the court to rebut the statutory presumption. An adverse inference can safely be drawn against the accused who has otherwise failed to adduce any credible evidence to show that he indeed did everything as prudent man to ensure that cheque with his signature is not misused.
38.The accused did not bring any evidence to impeach the credibility of the documents tendered by the complainant. Therefore, considering the admission of the accused that signature on the cheque in question belongs to CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 14/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:03:08 +0530 him, the issuance of the cheque in question in favour of the complainant and compelling documentary evidence placed on record and failure of the accused to put forth any reasonable and believable defence, the first element of the section 138 NI Act stands assembled.
39.As for the second condition qua the presentation of the cheque within three months is concerned, the same is satisfied upon the perusal of the cheque in question Ex CW1/3 and the return memo Ex CW1/4, thus, being presented within the prescribed period of limitation of three months. The defence did not adduce any evidence whatsoever to contradict the same.
40.The third condition pertains to the cheque being returned unpaid owing to it being dishonored. Bank return memo Ex CW1/4 or slip is prima- facie proof of the dishonor. Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188, in this regard comes into play which raises a presumption that the court shall presume the fact of dishonor of the cheque in case of cheque is returned vide a return memo issued by the bank having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored. Perusal of bank dishonour memo i.e., Ex CW1/4 shows that cheque in question on being presented in the bank was returned dishonoured due to "Funds Insufficient" on 03.05.2019. As the defence has failed to rebut the said presumption, hence the said condition is also satisfied.
41.Further, the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5(colly) was served by the complainant upon the accused on the address of the accused. The accused CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 15/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:03:12 +0530 stated during framing of notice under section 251 Crpc on 07.03.2020 and while recording of the statement under section 313 Crpc that he had received the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5(colly). As such, the legal notice stood served upon the accused, thus implying the satisfaction of the fourth condition.
42.The last condition is that accused fails to make the payment within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the legal demand notice. In the present case, the accused has evidently failed to make the payment within the fifteen days contending that he owes no legal liability to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques in question. The accused has miserably failed to prove the said assertion and thus, the last limb of what will entail the liability against the accused, is also structured.
43.Ratio: Finally, having considered the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant as spelled under section 139 NI Act. The law as laid down under section 138 NI Act, 1881 is made out against the accused. The weight of the evidence adduced by the complainant to prove his case against the accused is sufficient enough to impute criminality on the accused. Complainant has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, accused Ravi Chauhan is held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 16/17 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.03.16 16:03:15 +0530
44.Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence separately.
45.Let the copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
DIVYA Digitally signed
by DIVYA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.03.16
16:03:20 +0530
Announced in the open court on Divya Singh
16.03.2025 JMFC-NI Act -03,
South West District
Dwarka Courts, Delhi
CC No.: 24739/2019 M/s. Pradeep B/M Supplier Vs. Ravi Chauhan 17/17