Delhi District Court
Deepak Aggarwal vs Mahender Rawat on 18 February, 2026
GARIMA
IN THE COURT OF MS. GARIMA JINDAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,NORTH, ROHINI
Digitally signed COURTS, DELHI
by GARIMA
Date:
2026.02.18
12:50:32 CC.No. 12553/2016
+0530
CNR No. DLNT020048432016
Deepak Aggarwal
Prop. of
M/s Capital Printers and Packers
at 1640, Sohan Ganj,
Krishna Gali, Subzi Mandi,
Ghanta Ghar, Delhi-110007 ...Complainant
VS.
Mahender Rawat
Prop of Yash Enterprises
at D-1, 206, Street no. 6,
Soniya Vihar, Delhi-94 .... Accused
Date of Institution : 01.09.2014
Offence complained of : u/s 138 N.I. Act
Date of final arguments : 12.01.2026
Date of decision : 18.02.2026
Decision : Acquittal
J U D G M E N T:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose the present complaint filed under Section 138 N.I. Act against the accused. Before going further, it is necessary to dwell upon the brief facts of the case.
Brief facts:
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the proprietor of M/s Capital Printers and Packers and engaged in the business of printing and packing and accused is the sole proprietor of Yash Enterprises and approached the complainant to avail services of complainant Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 1 of 12 for printing and packing. Complainant carried out the said work and GARIMA supplied the material to the accused and after being satisfied, an amount of Rs. 1,40,106/- became due against the accused and accused in discharge of his liability, issued cheque bearing no. 311929 dated 18.04.2014 amounting Digitally signed by GARIMA to Rs. 1,40,000/- (hereinafter referred to as the cheque in question) and Date: 2026.02.18 when the complainant presented the cheque in question with his bank for its 12:50:37 +0530 encashment, the same was returned unpaid with the remarks "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and informed about the fate of the cheque, however, he kept on avoiding. Thereafter, the complainant also served a legal demand notice to the accused, which was duly served upon the accused but he failed to make the payment of the amount mentioned over the cheque in question within statutory period. Hence, the present complaint was filed before this court.
3. Cognizance in the present complaint was taken against the accused and after his appearance, plea of the guilt and his defence was recorded in compliance of section 251 Cr.P.C wherein accused pleaded not guilty and stated that he knows the complainant as they were in the same business and he had issued four cheques bearing no. 311926 to 311929 (including the cheque in question) to the complainant in a blank signed condition. It is further submitted by him that the same were given against the delivery of agreed printed material, which was never supplied. He further submitted that in the cheque in question the amount Rs. 40,000/- (in figures) and date was filled by him. He further submitted that the complainant has converted the figure of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,40,000/-. He further stated that his firm never dealt in business of paper board or duplex board. He further stated that the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant and the he never received the legal demand notice.
4. Thereafter, matter was listed for complainant's evidence and to establish his case, complainant / Deepak Aggarwal has examined himself as CW-1 and relied upon documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused. The material facts that Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 2 of 12 emerged during his cross examination, shall be dealt hereinunder, at the GARIMA appropriate stage.
Digitally 5. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded signed by GARIMA on 09.01.2020 wherein accused denied the case of the complainant and has Date:
2026.02.18 12:50:43 reiterated the stance taken by him at the stage recording of his plea of +0530 defence in compliance of section 251 of Cr.PC. Accused further chose to lead DE.
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for DE and to prove his defence, accused examined four witnesses including himself.
DW-1/ accused stated that he was doing the business of Novelty articles and closed the said business in 2014. The younger brother of the complainant namely Anuj was known to him being his friend. In the year 2014, he got a bulk order from Lok Sabha Candidate Dadan Yadav vide order marked as Mark A dated 10.02.2014. The complainant used to do business of supply of printing material and offered him to supply pamphlet quantity of 4 lakhs @ 50paise each. He agreed for the same to be supplied to said Dadan Yadav and thus gave four cheques (including the cheque in question) for the purpose of security to the complainant subject to the condition that when he would make payment, complainant will return the said cheques to him. The cheques were signed by him and only the date and amount in figures were filled by him. Out of the said four cheques, complainant had filed a case against him in Tis Hazari Courts. Qua the cheque in question, he stated that the amount mentioned in figures in same was overwritten as 1 was added ahead of Rs. 40,000/- and the same was thus fabricated by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant did not supply him the agreed printed material i.e. pamphlet on account of business problem and since the complete material was not supplied by him to Dadan Yadav, he remained unable to receive the payment and when he demanded his cheques back from the complainant, he stated that the same were got misplaced. Later, he came to know that the said cheques have been misused by the complainant. He further stated that no civil case was filed by Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 3 of 12 GARIMA complainant against him as he had nothing to pay to the complainant. He further denied receipt of legal demand notice from the complainant. He further stated that he came to know about the present case only upon receipt Digitally signed of notice from the court. He further stated that he never purchased any paper by GARIMA Date: board as alleged by the complainant as he had nothing to do with the same. 2026.02.18 12:50:47 The bill raised by the complainant qua the same is false and he has no +0530 liability towards the complainant qua the cheque in question and the same have been misused by the complainant.
DW-2/Ramesh Kumar is also a summoned witness. He stated that he is running a private school in Lalkuan and is known to the accused as he used to get his work done by accused. He introduced the accused with one Dadan Yadav for supply of printing material. Thereafter, since Dadan Yadav was busy and left, his wife looked after the order and signed the order dated 10.02.2014. The witness correctly identified the signatures of wife of Dadan Yadav at point A. Thereafter, on 26/27.02.2014, when he went to the office of accused, he found the complainant sitting there and they were talking about the supply of printing material. Then, in his presence, accused handed over the cheque in question along with three other cheques (no. 926,927,928 and 929) to the complainant, which were without any name of payee and amount in words. Out of the said four cheques, two were of Rs. 50,000/-, one was Rs. 60,000/- and other of Rs. 40,000/-. It was further agreed between them that when accused would pay the amount mentioned over the cheques, the complainant shall return the same back to him. The witness correctly identified the said cheques upon being confronted. The witness further stated that at the time of their handing over, the amount in figures over the cheque in question was Rs. 40,000/- and not Rs. 1,40,000/-. However, since the printing election material was not supplied completely, a dispute arose between Dadan Yadav and accused. Dadan Yadav did not make payment to the accused as the complete printing election material was not supplied to him. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 4 of 12DW-3/Ashutosh Kumar Mishra is a formal witness being the record GARIMA clerk of court of Ms. Divya Gupta, the then Ld. MM-05, NI Act, Central District and proved the record/ documents Ex.CW1/A-1, Ex.CW1/A-5, Digitally signed Ex.CW1/A-6 and from Ex.CW3/1 to Ex.CW3/7 of a case titled as Deepak by GARIMA Distributing Company Vs. Mahendra Rawat Case no. 526853/16. The Date:
2026.02.18 witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and 12:50:51 +0530 the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
DW-4/Pradeep Kumar is a summoned witness. He stated that he was a member of election campaign committee of BSP in year 2014 and met with the accused. He further stated that the order for election campaign material (T Shirt, Pamphlet, hand bill and cap etc. for BSP was placed with accused vide Ex.CW3/2. The witness identified his signatures at point B on the said exhibit. He further stated that although other materials were supplied, but, pamphlets and hand bills were not supplied. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
7. After conclusion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties, which have been duly considered by this court while passing the present judgment.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the signatures of the accused on the cheque in question being not denied and the accused had not led any probable defence in the present matter to rebut the presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act, and thus, he should be convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act.
9. Contrary to this, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that the cheque in question was given by the accused to the complainant as a security for goods to be supplied and the same has been misused by the complainant. It is further argued that the accused has no Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 5 of 12 legal liability towards the complainant as the said goods were never GARIMA supplied by complainant to the accused. Moreover, it is alleged that accused has filled an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on the cheque and complainant added "1" before the said amount and the same amounts to material alteration, Digitally signed by defeating the case of the complainant. It is further argued that the cheque is GARIMA Date: dated prior to the invoice raised by the complainant. Moreover, no bill 2026.02.18 12:50:55 whatsoever was mentioned in the original complaint and the bill was +0530 produced only after questions were put to the complainant during cross-
examination, proving that the bill has been fabricated after the fact. Furthermore, the bill is a carbon copy and the same bears no acknowledgement/receipt of the accused. Questions were also raised by Ld. Counsel for accused qua the nature of goods supplied by complainant to accused. It is further argued that no witness was called by the complainant from VAT department to prove that he paid VAT qua the goods supplied to accused and no sundry debtors/ creditors were mentioned in the ITR to prove liability of accused. It is further argued that no cross-examination of accused was conducted qua the defences of accused that "1" was added to the amount of cheque in figures and that bills were fabricated by complainant and thereby the testimony of accused has gone unrebutted. It is lastly argued by Ld. Counsel for Accused that since the accused had no liability towards the complainant and he has proved the same by way of preponderance of probabilities, he should be acquitted for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
The Law:
10. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is considered important to enumerate the basic provisions of law with respect to section 138 of the Act which are as follows: -
11. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes dis-
honour of cheques an offence. It provides that " where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the dis-
Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 6 of 12GARIMA charge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the Digitally signed by GARIMA amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with Date: 2026.02.18 12:51:14 that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and +0530 shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both".
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its va- lidity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giv-
ing a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty day] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, debt of other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
12. Careful reading of section 138 of the Act reflects that there are five key ingredients which need to exist for there to be an offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The ingredients for require- ments of section 138 are as follows:
a) There is a legally enforceable debt;
b) The drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to satisfy part or whole of the debt;
c) The cheque so issued has been returned due to insufficiency of funds/ exceeds insufficient;Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 7 of 12
GARIMA d) Legal demand notice was issued by the payee of the cheque within 30 days of dishonor of the cheque; and Digitally signed e) The drawee of the cheque has failed to make the payment of the by GARIMA cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the legal demand no- Date:
2026.02.18 tice. 12:51:21 +0530
13. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque and the dis- honour thereof is not in question. Moreover, though the accused has not ad- mitted the receipt of legal demand notice, the same cannot be taken as a de- fence at this stage. In this regard, reliance is warranted upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Another (2007) 6SCC 555 wherein it was held that when the drawer of cheque raises an objection that he never received legal notice U/s 138 NI Act, he can, within 15 days from receipt of summon from the court, make payment of the cheque amount. In case he does not do so, he cannot complain that there was no proper service of legal notice. In view of the said judgment, it is suf- ficiently clear that the defence of inadequate service of legal notice cannot be taken at this stage. The court finds merit in the submission of Ld. counsel for complainant that presumption of valid service of legal demand notice arises against the accused, if not by legal notice sent through post, by ser- vice of summons issued by the court.
14. The only tenable defence taken by the Accused is that the cheque in question was not issued by him in discharge of any legal liability as the same was a security cheque and no material was supplied by the com- plainant qua the same. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the ac- cused i.e. an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Thus, normally the initial burden to prove is on the complainant/ prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Also, the standard of proof is beyond reason- able doubt. However, in offences under section 138 of the Act, there is a re- verse onus clause contained in sections 118 and 139 of the Act.
Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 8 of 1215. Section 118(a) of the Act provides that until the contrary is GARIMA proved, it shall be presumed that "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, in- Digitally signed by dorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration." GARIMA Date:
2026.02.18 12:51:29 Further, Section 139 of the Act lays down that "it shall be +0530 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."
16. Thus, section 139 of the Act puts the burden on the accused to prove his defence. However, the accused has to prove his defence on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Once the pre- sumption is displaced, the accused is liable to be acquitted. The guiding principles have been laid down by the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa 2019 (5) SCC 418 in this regard which are as follows:
Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
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. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 9 of 12 and not a persuasive burden.
GARIMA
17. In the present case, since it has already been determined that the cheque bears the signatures of accused, in view of the above-mentioned Digitally principles, the only question which remains to be determined by the court is signed by GARIMA whether the cheque was issued by the accused qua any legally enforceable Date:
2026.02.18 liability or not, i.e., whether the accused has been able to rebut the presump-
12:51:36 +0530 tion u/s 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act.
18. In the present case, the case of the complainant is that cheque in question has been issued by the Accused for payment qua goods supplied by him to the latter. The accused has denied the supply of goods and claimed that the cheque was issued with an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and the figure of "1" was added by the complainant later on. He has further claimed that the cheque was issued as a security cheque and not against any legally enforceable liability.
DEFENCE THAT THE CHEQUE WAS ISSUED AS A SECURITY CHEQUE
19. As far as law pertaining to security cheque is concerned, it has been made clear by several judgments of superior courts that it is not a blanket defence. The crucial question that needs to be asked is whether or not liability to the extent of cheque amount existed on the date of presentation of the cheque. In " Sunil Todi & others Vs. State of Gujrat (2021) 5SCC 435", it has been categorically held by Supreme Court of India that the legal requirement that Section 138 NI Act embodies is that the cheque must be drawn for discharge of any debt or any legal liability. A cheque may be issued to facilitate a financial transaction between the parties. Where, acting upon the underlying purpose, a financial transaction between the parties has fructified, the presentation of cheque upon the failure of debtor to repay the loan would be a consequence well within the contemplation of drawer/debtor. In such a case, the cheque would be matured for presentation only after the commercial transaction and Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 10 of 12 GARIMA thereafter, in effect, it shall be considered to be drawn towards legally enforceable debt. In view of the above-mentioned judgment, the defence of the accused is not tenable unless it can be proved that no liability of the accused to the extent of cheque amount existed on the date of presentation Digitally signed by GARIMA of the cheque.
Date: 2026.02.1812:51:40 20. Thus, the final decision of the case depends upon the +0530 existence of legally enforceable liability on the date of presentation of the cheque regardless of whether the cheque was issued as security cheque. In the present case, accused has claimed that no goods were supplied by the complainant qua the cheque in question which was, in fact, issued for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The argument that the cheque was issued for a lesser sum than claimed is not sustainable as the amount in words is to be given precedence over the amount in figures and the same corroborates the amount in figures. Since the accused allegedly, as per his own admissions, signed the cheque without filling in the amount in words, he is deemed to authorize the payee, i.e., the complainant to fill the same. He can, in these circumstances, not take the defence that the cheque was not issued for amount mentioned therein.
21. Coming on to the other arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused, the court is in agreement with the argument that the bill in question bears no signatures/acknowledgement of accused and thus, the delivery of the goods comes in question. It is further the case of accused that the cheque was admittedly issued prior to the bill in question. Firstly, it is dated prior to the invoice/bill. Moreover, complainant has claimed that accused had earlier requested him to not present the cheque. If the cheque was indeed issued in the month of July as claimed by the complainant, then accused would not have had any opportunity to stop the complainant from presenting the same. Why the complainant accepted a cheque dated 18.04.2024 qua invoice dated 01.07.2014 is also beyond the comprehension of this court. These lacunae in the case of complainant are sufficient to prove that the cheque was indeed issued for security purposes. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complaint makes no mention of the bill or the date when cheque was Ct.Case. 12553/2016 Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 11 of 12 actually issued by accused. After questions were put to the complainant during cross-examination, the relevant bill was produced and the same bore no acknowledgement of accused. The authenticity of the bill, in these circumstances, has remained doubtful. Since a doubt has been raised by the accused in the case of complainant, the burden is now on the complainant to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. Evidently, no reliable evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove the delivery of goods and existence of legally enforceable liability. The case of accused, on the other hand, is supported by testimony of 3 witnesses apart from himself who have corroborated each other's testimony and have also stood the test of cross- examination. It can be safely concluded that the element of legally enforceable liability has not been proved by the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. Lack of legally enforceable liability, as discussed above, in itself, is a ground for acquittal of the accused.
22. Since the very essence of the offence u/s 138 NI Act, i.e., legally enforceable liability/ debt due from drawee to the payee has not been established, the court does not deem it necessary to delve into the remaining contentions of the accused and technical deficiencies of the evidence led by complainant.
23. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the accused has been able to raise a probable defence and has been able to raise doubt in the case of complainant. The complainant has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s 138 NI Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the accused Mahender Rawat is hereby acquitted of the offence U/s 138 NI Act.
Digitally signed by GARIMAANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Date:
COURT ON 18th February, 2026. GARIMA 2026.02.18
12:51:47
+0530
(Garima Jindal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-06
North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi/
18.02.2026
Ct.Case. 12553/2016
Deepak Aggarwal VS. Mahender Rawat Page 12 of 12