Delhi District Court
Rohit Nawaria vs Lal Ji Thakur on 21 February, 2026
DLND010029662025 Page 1 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
IN THE COURT OF SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER, ASJ-05,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH Criminal Appeal No. 136/2025
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
SINGH
LALER ROHIT NAWARIA
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:49:43
S/o Shri Suraj Mal Nawaria
+0530
R/o 594A, C-Block, Budh Nagar,
Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012
... Appellant/Convict
(Sh. Vaibhav Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant)
VERSUS
LAL JI THAKUR
S/o Shri Sukhan Thakur
R/o H-181, Block-H,
Naraina Vihar, Delhi-110093
... Respondent/Complainant
(Sh. Vipin Shishtra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent)
Date of Filing : 23.04.2025
Arguments heard on : 30.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 21.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C/415(3) BNSS challenging the judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2025 and the order on sentence dated 11.03.2025 passed by the DLND010029662025 Page 2 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Digital Court-1, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. SAURABH 2979/2022. Through the impugned judgment, the Learned Trial Court PARTAP SINGH LALER convicted the Appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act") and SINGH LALER Date: 2026.02.21 17:49:47 +0530 directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the cheque i.e. 10.01.2022 till the date of judgment i.e. 13.02.2025, within 30 days from the date of sentence dated 11.03.2025, failing which the convict was to undergo simple imprisonment of one month in default.
1.2 After careful perusal of the appeal record, consideration of arguments advanced by both sides, and thorough examination of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the Learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted the Appellant. The judgment is well-reasoned, legally sound, and based on cogent evidence. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed for the detailed reasons that follow.
2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE DLND010029662025 Page 3 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint case and subsequent conviction are as follows:
2.1 The Respondent/Complainant Shri Lal Ji Thakur filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on 16.03.2022 against the SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER Appellant/Accused Rohit Nawaria alleging that in the first week of July, 2021, the Appellant had taken a friendly loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER Date: 2026.02.21 17:49:50 +0530
(Rupees One Lakh Only) from the Complainant for his personal needs and requirements 1. In order to discharge this liability, the Appellant issued Cheque No. 921319 dated 10.01.2022 drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the Complainant 2.
2.2 On presentation of the said cheque with the banker, the same was dishonored vide returning memo dated 13.01.2022 with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" 3. Thereafter, the Complainant caused a legal demand notice dated 20.01.2022 to be issued to the Appellant under Section 138(b) of the NI Act, calling upon him to pay the 1 Judgment of Learned JMFC, Patiala House Court, New Delhi dated 13.02.2025 in CC No. 2979/2022, Page 2, Para 2 2 Cheque No. 921319 dated 10.01.2022 drawn on State Bank of India -
Ex.CW1/1 3Return Memo dated 13.01.2022 - Ex.CW1/2 DLND010029662025 Page 4 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice 4. Despite receiving the legal demand notice, the Appellant failed and refused to pay the cheque amount to the Complainant within the statutory period Digitally of 15 days.
signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 2.3 Consequently, the Complainant filed the present complaint case 17:49:54 +0530 under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was duly registered and proceeded to trial.
3 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON SENTENCE 3.1 A. Proceedings Before the Learned Trial Court 3.1.1 After careful perusal of the pre-summoning evidence, the Learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and issued summons to the Appellant. The Appellant moved an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, and thereafter, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against him for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.1.2 At the stage of framing of notice, the Appellant made the following admissions and denials:4
Legal Demand Notice dated 20.01.2022 - Ex.CW1/3 DLND010029662025 Page 5 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.1.2.1 Signatures on the cheque in question - Admitted 3.1.2.2 Filling up the material particulars - Denied Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH LALER Date:
3.1.2.3 Receiving the legal demand notice - Denied 2026.02.21 17:49:59 +0530 3.1.2.4 Whether his correct postal address was mentioned on the legal demand notice - Admitted 3.1.2.5 Genuineness of the returning memo - Admitted 3.1.3 In his defence, the Appellant stated that he did not know the Complainant and had no liability towards him. He claimed that the cheque in question was handed over to one Mr. Rakesh and he did not know how the cheque came into possession of the Complainant. He further stated that he had even lodged a complaint against the Complainant alleging misuse of the cheque in question, and that a false and fabricated complaint had been filed against him.
3.2 Evidence Led During Trial 3.2.1 In the post-summoning evidence, the Complainant Lal Ji Thakur examined himself as the sole complainant witness (CW-1).
He tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and relied upon the following documents:
DLND010029662025 Page 6 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.2.1.1 Cheque No. 921319 - Ex.CW1/1 3.2.1.2 Returning Memo dated 13.01.2022 - Ex.CW1/2 Digitally signed by 3.2.1.3 Legal Demand Notice dated 20.01.2022 - Ex.CW1/3 SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 3.2.1.4 Postal Receipt - Ex.CW1/4 17:50:02 +0530 3.2.1.5 Tracking Report - Ex.CW1/5 3.2.1.6 Complaint - Ex.CW1/6 3.2.2 During cross-examination by the Appellant's counsel, the Complainant stated that he had known the Appellant for the last 10-15 years and had given the loan amount in cash. He did not remember the exact date of advancing the loan but confirmed it was given in July, 2021. He stated that no other witness was present at the time of advancement of the loan. The Complainant further stated that he knew one person named Bhagat Singh but did not know any person named Sanjeev. He denied the suggestion that the Appellant had dealings with Bhagat Singh and that the impugned cheque was handed over to the Complainant by Bhagat Singh.
3.2.3 Thereafter, the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he stated that he did not know DLND010029662025 Page 7 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR the Complainant and did not take any friendly loan from him. In this statement he stated that he had taken loan from one Bhogat Singh of Rs.15,000/- and had given five cheques to him.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH 3.2.4 The Appellant opted to lead defence evidence but on SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 11.02.2025, he stated that he did not wish to examine any witness, 17:50:06 +0530 and consequently, the defence evidence was closed.
3.3 Findings and Conviction by the Learned Trial Court 3.3.1 After hearing final arguments from both sides and carefully considering the evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court delivered its judgment dated 13.02.2025. The Learned Trial Court meticulously examined whether all the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act were satisfied in the present case. The Court held as follows:
3.3.1.1 On execution and presentation of cheque: The Court found that it was not in dispute that the cheque in question was drawn by the Appellant from his bank account, as the Appellant had himself admitted his signatures on the cheque.
The presentation of the cheque by the Complainant and the genuineness of the return memo were also not disputed by the Appellant.
DLND010029662025 Page 8 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.3.1.2 On service of legal demand notice: Though the SAURABH PARTAP Appellant denied receiving the legal demand notice, he SINGH LALER admitted that the address mentioned on the legal demand notice Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER was his correct address. The Learned Trial Court, after Date: 2026.02.21 17:50:09 +0530 examining the legal demand notice (Ex.CW1/3), postal receipt (Ex.CW1/4), and tracking report (Ex.CW1/5), found that the notice was delivered at the address of the Appellant on 22.01.2022. Relying upon the successive interpretation of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Mohd & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555 and Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah (2014) SLT 524, the Learned Trial Court held that there arose a presumption of service of legal notice in favour of the Complainant. The Court further noted that not even a single question was put to the Complainant during cross-examination on this aspect, and thus, an adverse inference was raised against the Appellant.
3.3.1.3 On legally enforceable debt and presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act: The Learned Trial Court noted that the Appellant had admitted his signatures on DLND010029662025 Page 9 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR the cheque in question at the time of framing of notice. The Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH Court accordingly raised the statutory presumptions under PARTAP LALER SINGH LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:50:13 +0530 Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act in favour of the Complainant, holding that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The burden then shifted upon the Appellant to rebut these presumptions on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
3.3.1.4 On rebuttal of presumption by the Appellant: The Learned Trial Court examined whether the Appellant was able to rebut the statutory presumptions and found that he had failed to do so. The Court noted that the Appellant, in his defence, stated that he had given the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, but no suggestion in this regard was put to the Complainant during cross-examination. The Complainant was asked about Bhagat Singh and Sanjeev, but there was no mention of any person named Rakesh. The Appellant also claimed that he did not know the Complainant, but the Complainant had stated in cross-examination that he had known the Appellant for 10-15 years, and no suggestion was put to challenge this testimony.
Most importantly, the Appellant was given an opportunity to DLND010029662025 Page 10 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR lead defence evidence but refused to examine himself or any other witness in his defence, thereby depriving himself of the opportunity to prove his defence and subject himself to cross- examination.
3.3.2 The Learned Trial Court also noted that the Appellant claimed to have lodged a complaint against the Complainant for misuse of the cheque, but no such complaint was produced on record, nor was any witness examined to prove this fact.
Digitally signed by 3.3.3 Accordingly, the Learned Trial Court held that the SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER Appellant had failed to create a reasonable doubt over the veracity LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:50:17 +0530 of the Complainant's case by balance of probabilities and had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The Court found that all the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act were fully proved and accordingly convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3.4 Order on Sentence 3.4.1 On 11.03.2025, the Learned Trial Court passed the order on sentence after hearing arguments from both sides. The counsel for the Appellant pleaded for leniency on the ground that the Appellant was an innocent person facing conviction for the first DLND010029662025 Page 11 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR time and was the bread earner of his family. The counsel for the Complainant, on the contrary, submitted that the present case was an old one, the liability pertained to the year 2022, and that the Appellant deserved maximum punishment.
Digitally 3.4.2 After considering the totality of the circumstances and signed by SAURABH noting that the liability of the Appellant towards the Complainant SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:50:21
+0530
regarding the present cheque was pending since 2022, the Learned Trial Court ordered the Appellant to pay compensation to the Complainant for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the cheque i.e. 10.01.2022 till the date of judgment i.e. 13.02.2025, within 30 days from the date of sentence dated 11.03.2025, failing which the convict was to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month in default.
3.4.3 It is pertinent to note that no substantive sentence of imprisonment was awarded by the Learned Trial Court. Only compensation with interest and default imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation was awarded, which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act read with Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
DLND010029662025 Page 12 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.5 APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 3.5.1 Before proceeding to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to first deal with the application filed by the Appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal.
3.5.2 The Appellant has submitted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal due to the reason that though he had applied Digitally signed by SAURABH for certified copy of the judgment and order on sentence on SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
22.03.2025, the same was not ready till 20.04.2025. An affidavit to 2026.02.21 17:50:24 +0530 this effect has been filed by the Appellant, and a copy of the certified copy receipt dated 22.03.2025 bearing CA ID Number 2503003776 has been placed on record.
3.5.3 I have considered the application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the documentary evidence placed on record. The delay in filing the appeal appears to be on account of the certified copy not being ready in time, which is beyond the control of the Appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor willful. The interest of justice demands that the application for condonation of delay be allowed so that the matter can be adjudicated upon on its merits.DLND010029662025 Page 13 of 43
CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.5.4 Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is hereby ALLOWED, and the delay of 10 days is hereby CONDONED.
3.6 GROUNDS OF APPEAL The Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence on the following principal Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP grounds:
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:28
+0530 3.6.1 That the impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Court
is illegal, incorrect in law, and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3.6.2 That the Learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on sentence in a mechanical manner and without applying judicial mind.
3.6.3 That the Learned Trial Court erred by not taking into consideration the discrepancies and flaws in the testimony of the Complainant in favour of the Appellant.
3.6.4 That the Respondent/Complainant did not support his case on the ground of friendly loan through any other documents such as bank statement showing withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash.
DLND010029662025 Page 14 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.6.5 That there was no evidence to show that the Appellant took the loan from the Complainant, and thus liability was not proved.
3.6.6 That the Appellant never knew the Digitally Respondent/Complainant.
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
That the Respondent/Complainant did not furnish any LALER SINGH LALER Date:
2026.02.21 3.6.7 17:50:32 +0530 documents showing entry in passbook for withdrawal of money of Rs. 1,00,000/- in one go.
3.6.8 That no eye witness was present at the time of alleged advancement of loan.
3.6.9 That the Appellant had given the disputed cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, and the same has been misused by the Complainant.
3.6.10 That the Appellant had taken loan from one Bhagat Singh and had given the said cheque to Bhagat Singh, who failed to return the same.
3.6.11 That the Appellant had rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act through cross-examination of the Complainant.
3.7 ARGUMENTS DLND010029662025 Page 15 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.7.1 Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Appellant The Learned Counsel for the Appellant advanced the following arguments in support of the appeal:
3.7.1.1 That the Appellant had never taken any friendly loan from the Respondent/Complainant. The Appellant submitted that he did not even know the Respondent/Complainant and Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP that the entire case was false and fabricated.
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:37
+0530
3.7.1.2 That the Appellant had actually taken a loan of Rs.
15,000/- from one Bhagat Singh, who provided him an amount of Rs. 14,000/- via cheque after deducting interest of Rs. 1,000/-. In order to secure this loan, the Appellant had provided 5 security cheques to Bhagat Singh. The Appellant repaid the entire amount to Bhagat Singh and demanded the return of the security cheques, but Bhagat Singh stated that he was unable to find the cheques and deliberately did not return them. One of these security cheques has been misused by the Complainant in the present case.
3.7.1.3 Alternatively, the Appellant submitted that he had given the disputed cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, and he did not DLND010029662025 Page 16 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR know how the cheque came into possession of the Complainant.
SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP 3.7.1.4 That the Complainant did not produce any evidence PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:50:41 to show that he had given Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to the +0530 Appellant. No bank statement showing withdrawal of such a large amount was produced. No witness was present at the time of alleged advancement of loan. The Complainant could not even recall the exact date of advancing the loan.
3.7.1.5 That these discrepancies and gaps in the evidence of the Complainant should have been appreciated in favour of the Appellant by the Learned Trial Court.
3.7.1.6 That the Appellant had rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act through the cross-
examination of the Complainant and through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
3.7.1.7 That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the Appellant is entitled to acquittal.
3.7.2 Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Respondent/Complainant DLND010029662025 Page 17 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant advanced the following arguments in opposition to the appeal:
3.7.2.1 That the Appellant had duly admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act are mandatorily raised in favour of the holder of the cheque.
3.7.2.2 That the burden then shifts upon the Appellant to rebut these presumptions on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The Appellant has miserably failed to discharge this burden.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:50:45 +0530 3.7.2.3 That the defence set up by the Appellant is wholly inconsistent, contradictory, and not supported by any evidence whatsoever. At the time of framing of notice, the Appellant stated that he had given the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, but during trial and in the present appeal, he has taken a completely different defence that he had given the cheque to one Bhagat Singh. Not a single suggestion regarding Rakesh was put to the Complainant during cross-examination. Similarly, no evidence regarding the alleged loan from Bhagat Singh was produced.DLND010029662025 Page 18 of 43
CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 3.7.2.4 That most significantly, the Appellant failed to enter the witness box to prove his defence and subject himself to the rigours of cross-examination. This is fatal to the defence of the Appellant.
3.7.2.5 That the Appellant also did not make any effort to summon either Bhagat Singh or Sanjeev or Rakesh as witnesses to prove his defence. The defence raised by the Appellant is completely devoid of evidence and has been Digitally signed by SAURABH rightly rejected by the Learned Trial Court.
SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH LALER Date: 3.7.2.6 That the legal demand notice was duly served upon 2026.02.21 17:50:48 +0530 the Appellant at his correct and admitted address, as evidenced by postal receipts and tracking report. The presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act stands in favour of the Complainant. The Appellant's bare denial carries no evidentiary value.
3.7.2.7 That minor inability to recall the exact date of advancement of loan does not discredit the transaction, especially when the liability was acknowledged by the Appellant through issuance of the cheque in question. The requirement of producing bank statement or having eye DLND010029662025 Page 19 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR witnesses is not a statutory requirement under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3.7.2.8 That the Learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted the Appellant. All the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act stand duly proved. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any Digitally signed by SAURABH infirmity and deserves to be upheld.
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:50:51
+0530
3.7.2.9 That the appeal is nothing but a dilatory tactic to
delay compliance with the lawful sentence and is liable to be dismissed.
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for both parties, perused the record of the Learned Trial Court, examined the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2025 and order on sentence dated 11.03.2025, and also gone through the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant.
4.2 Before proceeding to examine the specific grounds of appeal, it would be appropriate to first discuss the legal position with regard to DLND010029662025 Page 20 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
4.3 A. Legal Framework: Ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act 4.3.1 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for punishment in case of dishonour of cheque for Digitally signed by SAURABH insufficiency of funds. For establishing the offence under Section SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
138 of the NI Act, the following ingredients must be cumulatively 2026.02.21 17:50:55 +0530 satisfied:
4.3.2 The cheque in question must have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability;
4.3.3 The cheque must have been presented before the bank for encashment within three months from the date on which it is drawn, or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
4.3.4 The cheque must have been returned by the bank unpaid, either for insufficiency of funds or for any other reason mentioned in the proviso to Section 138;
4.3.5 A demand must be made in writing by the payee or holder in due course, by issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of DLND010029662025 Page 21 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank regarding return of the cheque; and 4.3.6 There must be failure on the part of the drawer to make payment of the cheque amount to the payee or holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER Date:
4.3.7 This legal position has been consistently laid down by the LALER 2026.02.21 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments 17:50:58 +0530 including MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177, Rangappa Vs. Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, and Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418.
4.3.8 In the landmark judgment of MSR Leathers (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have 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. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make 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. The third DLND010029662025 Page 22 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make 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. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the proviso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to Digitally have been committed by the person issuing the cheque."
signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP Statutory Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI PARTAP 4.4 SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 17:51:01 +0530 Act 4.4.1 Section 118(a) of the NI Act provides:
"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."
4.4.2 Section 139 of the NI Act provides:
"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."
4.5 Both these presumptions are rebuttable presumptions. Once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are mandatorily raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. The burden then shifts upon the DLND010029662025 Page 23 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR accused to rebut these presumptions. The standard of proof required for rebutting the presumptions is that of preponderance of probabilities, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 summarized the principles relating to Sections Digitally signed by 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act in the following manner:
SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date: "(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for discharge of 2026.02.21 17:51:05 +0530 any debt or legal liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden."
4.7 It is important to note that while Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden, and while it is not absolutely necessary for the accused to enter the witness box, the quality and credibility of the defence raised by the accused would be DLND010029662025 Page 24 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR significantly enhanced if the accused chooses to enter the witness box and subject himself to cross-examination. Conversely, the failure of the accused to enter the witness box despite raising a specific defence would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while assessing whether the accused has been able to rebut the statutory presumptions.
5 Examination of the Present Case With this legal framework in mind, this Court shall now examine Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH whether all the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH satisfied in the present case, and whether the Appellant has been Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 17:51:09 +0530 able to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
5.1 Ingredient No. 1: Execution of the cheque and legally enforceable debt 5.1.1 It is an admitted fact on record that the Appellant has signed the cheque in question bearing No. 921319 dated 10.01.2022 drawn on State Bank of India for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
This admission was made by the Appellant at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Trial Court. The cheque in question has been exhibited as Ex.CW1/1.
DLND010029662025 Page 25 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 5.1.2 Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:51:12 +0530 are mandatorily raised in favour of the Complainant/holder of the cheque. Accordingly, it is to be presumed that the cheque was drawn for consideration and was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
5.1.3 The burden then shifts upon the Appellant to rebut these presumptions on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
The crucial question is whether the Appellant has been able to discharge this burden.
5.2 Rebuttal of Presumption by the Appellant 5.2.1 The Appellant has raised multiple and inconsistent defences in the present case. At the time of framing of notice, the Appellant stated that he had handed over the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh and he did not know how the cheque came into possession of the Complainant. However, in his grounds of appeal and during arguments, the Appellant has taken a completely different defence that he had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from one Bhagat Singh, who provided him Rs. 14,000/- after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as DLND010029662025 Page 26 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR interest, and that he had provided 5 security cheques to Bhagat Singh, one of which has been misused in the present case. Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH 5.2.2 This inconsistency in the defence itself raises serious doubts SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:51:18 about the credibility of the Appellant's case. A truthful defence +0530 would be consistent throughout. The shifting of the defence from Rakesh to Bhagat Singh indicates that the Appellant is merely trying different versions to escape liability without any basis in truth.
5.2.3 More importantly, no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the Appellant to substantiate either version of his defence. The following facts are particularly noteworthy:
5.2.4 No suggestion regarding Rakesh during cross-examination:
Though the Appellant claimed at the time of framing of notice that he had given the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, not even a single suggestion regarding Rakesh was put to the Complainant during his cross-examination. The Complainant was asked about Bhagat Singh and Sanjeev, but there was no mention of Rakesh. This is fatal to the Appellant's defence regarding Rakesh.
5.2.5 No evidence regarding Bhagat Singh: The Appellant claimed that he had taken a loan from Bhagat Singh and had given DLND010029662025 Page 27 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR the cheque to him. However, no evidence was produced to prove this transaction. The Appellant did not produce any loan agreement, any receipt, any bank statement, or any other document to show that he had taken a loan from Bhagat Singh. No witness was examined to prove this fact.
5.2.6 Failure to summon Bhagat Singh or Sanjeev: Most Digitally significantly, the Appellant did not make any effort to summon signed by SAURABH PARTAP SAURABH PARTAP SINGH either Bhagat Singh or Sanjeev as witnesses to prove his defence.
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21 If the Appellant had genuinely given the cheque to Bhagat Singh,
17:51:22
+0530
and if Bhagat Singh had indeed misused the cheque or handed it over to the Complainant, then Bhagat Singh would have been the most crucial witness for the defence. The failure to examine Bhagat Singh gives rise to a strong adverse inference against the Appellant under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that the Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.
5.2.7 Appellant did not enter the witness box: Most crucially, the Appellant opted to lead defence evidence but thereafter stated that he did not wish to examine any witness. The Appellant himself did not enter the witness box to prove his defence and subject himself DLND010029662025 Page 28 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR to the rigours of cross-examination. Though it is legally permissible for an accused not to enter the witness box, the failure to do so while raising a specific defence of having given the cheque to a third party is a highly relevant circumstance. If the SAURABH Digitally signed Appellant had genuinely given the cheque to Bhagat Singh or by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.21 LALER 17:51:26 +0530 Rakesh, the Appellant could have easily entered the witness box, narrated the entire sequence of events, produced documentary evidence, and subjected himself to cross-examination. His failure to do so indicates that the defence is nothing but an afterthought and a concocted story.
5.2.8 No complaint filed against the Complainant: The Appellant claimed that he had lodged a complaint against the Complainant for misuse of the cheque. However, no such complaint, no FIR, no GD entry, or any other document was produced on record to substantiate this claim. This again indicates that the defence is false.
5.2.9 In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the Appellant has failed to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate his defence. The defence raised by the Appellant is completely bereft of any evidence and is nothing but a bare and bald denial. Such a defence cannot be said to have rebutted the statutory presumptions DLND010029662025 Page 29 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
5.2.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 has held that the burden of proving the Digitally signed SAURABH PARTAP by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER non-existence of consideration is on the accused and the burden SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 17:51:30 +0530 can be discharged by adducing direct evidence or by examining the circumstances and the preponderance of probabilities. The accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to rebut the presumption.
5.2.11 In the present case, the Appellant has neither adduced any direct evidence, nor has he been able to show any circumstances or preponderance of probabilities in his favour. The Appellant has also not been able to rely on any materials submitted by the Complainant to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act remain unrebutted and operate in full force in favour of the Complainant.
5.3 Alleged Discrepancies in the Evidence of the Complainant 5.3.1 The Appellant has sought to make much of the fact that the Complainant could not recall the exact date of advancement of DLND010029662025 Page 30 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR loan, that no bank statement was produced, and that no eye witness was present at the time of alleged advancement of loan.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP SINGH LALER Date:
5.3.2 These submissions are without any merit. Minor inability to LALER 2026.02.21 17:51:33 +0530 recall the exact date of advancement of loan does not discredit the transaction, especially when the liability has been acknowledged by the accused through issuance of the cheque. In the present case, the Complainant has consistently stated that the loan was advanced in the first week of July, 2021. The fact that he cannot recall the exact date is not material. It is common human experience that persons cannot recall exact dates of transactions which took place several years ago, especially when the transaction was between known persons and was of an informal nature.
5.3.3 As regards the production of bank statement, it is not a statutory requirement under Section 138 of the NI Act that the complainant must produce bank statement showing withdrawal of the loan amount. The case of the Complainant is that the loan was advanced in cash. There is no legal prohibition on advancing loan in cash. Moreover, once the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same. The accused cannot discharge this burden by DLND010029662025 Page 31 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR merely pointing out that the complainant has not produced bank Digitally signed statement.
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.02.21 LALER 17:51:37 +0530 5.3.4 Similarly, the absence of eye witness at the time of advancement of loan is not fatal to the case of the Complainant.
Loans between known persons are often advanced in private without any witnesses. The Complainant has categorically stated that he had known the Appellant for 10-15 years. In such circumstances, it is entirely natural that the loan would have been advanced without any witness. Moreover, the requirement of having witnesses to prove the transaction would defeat the very object of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, which raise presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque.
5.3.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 1975 has observed that the Act provides for a presumption of discharge of legally recoverable debt and liability. It is for the accused to rebut the same by raising the defence of lack of consideration or collusion etc. by a preponderance of probability. In the instant case, the accused has not been able to rebut the said presumption.
5Full bench DLND010029662025 Page 32 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 5.3.6 Accordingly, the alleged discrepancies pointed out by the Appellant in the evidence of the Complainant are not of such a nature as would create any doubt about the credibility of the Complainant's case or would assist the Appellant in rebutting the statutory presumptions.
5.4 Ingredient No. 2: Presentation of cheque within validity period 5.4.1 The cheque in question is dated 10.01.2022. The same was Digitally signed by presented before the bank and was dishonored vide returning SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER memo dated 13.01.2022. The genuineness of the return memo has SINGH LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:51:41 been admitted by the Appellant. Accordingly, it is clear that the +0530 cheque was presented within the period of its validity. This ingredient is duly satisfied.
5.5 Ingredient No. 3: Service of legal demand notice 5.5.1 The Appellant has denied receiving the legal demand notice. However, he has admitted that his correct postal address was mentioned on the legal demand notice. The Complainant has produced the legal demand notice dated 20.01.2022 (Ex.CW1/3), postal receipt (Ex.CW1/4), and tracking report (Ex.CW1/5) on record. On perusal of these documents, it is evident that the notice DLND010029662025 Page 33 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR was duly dispatched to the correct address of the Appellant and was delivered on 22.01.2022.
5.5.2 Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides:
"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre- Digitally paying and posting by registered post, a letter signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course 17:51:44 +0530 of post."
5.5.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555 (Three-Judge Bench) has held that if a notice has been sent by registered post to the address given by the accused it is to be presumed that the notice has been served on him unless the contrary is proved by the accused. The burden is on the accused to prove that the notice was not served on him or that it was not tendered to him.
5.5.4 Similarly, in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah (2014) SLT 524, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the DLND010029662025 Page 34 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR demand notice is properly and correctly addressed, there is presumption of service thereof. It is then for the accused to prove that he did not receive the demand notice and this cannot be accomplished by a mere denial.
5.5.5 In the present case, the legal demand notice was properly and correctly addressed to the Appellant at his own admitted Digitally signed by address. The postal receipt and tracking report clearly establish SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:47
+0530
that the notice was delivered at the address of the Appellant on 22.01.2022. Accordingly, the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act operates in favour of the Complainant, and it is to be presumed that the notice was duly served upon the Appellant.
5.5.6 The Appellant has merely denied receiving the notice but has not adduced any evidence to prove that the notice was not received by him. A bare denial is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The Appellant has not explained what happened to the notice if it was delivered at his address. No postal official has been examined to show that the delivery was not effected. In these circumstances, the presumption of service operates in full force.
DLND010029662025 Page 35 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 5.5.7 Moreover, a very significant circumstance to be noted is that not even a single question or suggestion was put to the Complainant during cross-examination regarding the service of Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.02.21 LALER 17:51:51 +0530 legal demand notice. If the Appellant genuinely did not receive the notice, his counsel would have put suggestions to the Complainant in this regard. The complete absence of any such suggestion strengthens the case of the Complainant.
5.5.8 Accordingly, this ingredient is also duly satisfied.
5.6 Ingredient No. 4: Failure to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice The legal demand notice was delivered on 22.01.2022. It is the case of the Complainant, which has not been disputed, that the Appellant failed to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The Appellant has also not produced any evidence to show that he made payment within the statutory period. Accordingly, this ingredient is also satisfied.
5.7 Ingredient No. 5: Reason for dishonour 5.7.1 The cheque was dishonored with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" vide returning memo dated 13.01.2022 DLND010029662025 Page 36 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR (Ex.CW1/2). The Appellant has admitted the genuineness of the return memo. "Payment stopped by drawer" is one of the reasons for dishonour covered under the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, this ingredient is also satisfied.
6 Conclusion on Ingredients Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER In view of the above detailed analysis, it is clear that all the SINGH
6.1.1 Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:54
+0530
ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are fully and completely satisfied in the present case. The Appellant has admitted his signatures on the cheque. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act have been mandatorily raised in favour of the Complainant. The Appellant has failed to rebut these presumptions by leading any credible evidence. The defence raised by the Appellant is inconsistent, contradictory, and completely devoid of any evidence. The Appellant has neither entered the witness box himself, nor has he summoned any witness to prove his defence. The Appellant has also failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his defence.
6.1.2 In these circumstances, the Learned Trial Court has rightly held that the Appellant has failed to create any reasonable doubt DLND010029662025 Page 37 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR over the veracity of the case of the Complainant and has rightly convicted the Appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act.
7 Assessment of the Impugned Judgment 7.1.1 This Court has carefully perused the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2025 and finds that the Learned Trial Court has Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH discussed all the relevant legal principles, correctly appreciated the PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER evidence on record, and arrived at a well-reasoned and legally SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 17:51:58 +0530 sound conclusion. The Learned Trial Court has meticulously examined each ingredient of Section 138 of the NI Act and has correctly held that all the ingredients are satisfied. The Learned Trial Court has also correctly appreciated the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act and has rightly found that the Appellant has failed to rebut these presumptions.
7.1.2 The judgment is neither illegal nor perverse. The Learned Trial Court has applied its judicial mind to all the relevant aspects of the case. The judgment is based on cogent evidence and sound legal principles. There is no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment that would warrant interference by this Court in appeal.
8 Assessment of the Order on Sentence DLND010029662025 Page 38 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR
8.1.1 As regards the order on sentence dated 11.03.2025, it is pertinent to note that no substantive sentence of imprisonment has been awarded to the Appellant. The Learned Trial Court has only directed the Appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the cheque till the date of judgment, failing which the Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP Appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month in PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:52:02
+0530
default.
8.1.2 Section 138 of the NI Act provides for punishment which
may extend to imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. In addition, Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. provides for payment of compensation to the victim.
8.1.3 The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is primarily an economic offence. The primary object of the provision is to provide a quick and summary remedy to the payee of dishonored cheques. In such cases, unless there are aggravating circumstances, courts generally award compensation rather than substantive imprisonment.
DLND010029662025 Page 39 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 8.1.4 In the present case, the Learned Trial Court has taken a lenient view and has awarded only compensation along with interest. The quantum of compensation awarded is Rs. 1,00,000/-, Digitally signed by which is exactly equal to the amount of the dishonored cheque. SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER Date: The interest has been awarded at 9% per annum, which is LALER 2026.02.21 17:52:05 +0530 reasonable and compensatory in nature. The period of default imprisonment of 1 month is also reasonable and proportionate.
8.1.5 The compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayawati Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain (2000) 4 SCC 400, Goaplast (P) Ltd. Vs. Chico Ursula D'Souza (2003) 3 SCC 232, and M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 234.
8.1.6 Moreover, the liability of the Appellant towards the Complainant regarding the present cheque has been pending since January, 2022. The Complainant has been deprived of his hard- earned money for over four years now. In these circumstances, the compensation along with interest awarded by the Learned Trial Court cannot be said to be either excessive or inadequate. The same is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law.
DLND010029662025 Page 40 of 43CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 8.1.7 In the absence of any substantive sentence of imprisonment, there is no scope for reducing the compensation or waiving the default imprisonment. The Appellant is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Learned Trial Court. If the Appellant fails to pay the compensation, he shall have to undergo Digitally signed the default imprisonment as ordered.
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
PARTAP LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:52:09 +0530
8.1.8 Accordingly, the order on sentence passed by the Learned
Trial Court also does not call for any interference by this Court.
9 CONCLUSION 9.1 After detailed consideration of the entire case, this Court arrives at the following conclusions:
9.2 The application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is hereby ALLOWED, and the delay is hereby CONDONED for the reasons mentioned in the application.
9.3 All the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are fully and completely proved in the present case. The Appellant has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act have been mandatorily raised in favour of the DLND010029662025 Page 41 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR Complainant. The Appellant has failed to rebut these presumptions even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
9.4 The defence raised by the Appellant is inconsistent, contradictory, Digitally signed by and completely devoid of any evidence. No evidence has been SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP produced to substantiate the defence. The Appellant has neither PARTAP SINGH SINGH LALER LALER Date:
2026.02.21 17:52:12 +0530 entered the witness box himself nor summoned any witness to prove his defence. The Appellant has also not produced any documentary evidence. The defence raised by the Appellant could not be proved even prima facie, and obviously not on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
9.5 The impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Learned Trial Court is well-reasoned, legally sound, and based on cogent evidence. The Learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly convicted the Appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act. The judgment does not suffer from any error or infirmity.
9.6 The order on sentence dated 11.03.2025 is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. No substantive sentence of imprisonment has been awarded. Only compensation along with interest has been awarded, which is appropriate given that the offence under Section DLND010029662025 Page 42 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR 138 of the NI Act is primarily an economic offence. The compensation cannot be reduced, nor can the default imprisonment be waived.
9.7 The present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal appears to be nothing but a dilatory tactic to delay compliance with the lawful sentence passed by the Learned Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH Trial Court.
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 Accordingly, for the detailed reasons discussed above, the present 17:52:16 +0530 9.8 appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2025 and the order on sentence dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Digital Court-1, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2979/2022 are hereby UPHELD and AFFIRMED.
10 DIRECTIONS The following directions are hereby issued:
10.1 The Appellant/Convict Shri Rohit Nawaria is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the cheque i.e. 10.01.2022 till the date of the judgment of the Learned DLND010029662025 Page 43 of 43 CA/136/2025 ROHIT NAWARIA Vs. LAL JI THAKUR Trial Court i.e. 13.02.2025 to the Respondent/Complainant Shri Lal Ji Thakur in terms of the order on sentence passed by Ld. Trial Court.
10.2 In the event of failure on the part of the Appellant/Convict to make payment of the compensation as directed, the Appellant/Convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month in default of payment of compensation as directed in order of sentence.
10.3 The fine amount, if not paid in time, shall be recoverable under the provisions of Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C./505 read Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH with 516 BNSS.
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21 17:52:20 +0530 11 A copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for information and necessary action and execution of order on sentence.
12 Copy of judgment be given to appellant free of cost.
13 There shall be no order as to costs.
Announced in open court on this 21st day of February, 2026.
(SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER) ASJ-05/New Delhi District PHC / New Delhi / 21.02.2026