Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chandra vs Pradeep Kumar on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRADDHA TRIPATHI, JMFC (NI
ACT), DIGITAL COURT-03, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF : CT CASES 47243/2019
Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Ramesh Chander S/o Late Sh. Dayer Chander
R/o H.No. 180, Safddarjung Hospital
Staff Quarters, Raj Nagar, Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi ...Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Sharan
R/o I-95, Lal Kuan, M.B. Road, New Delhi ...Accused
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 19.02.2020
Offence Charged with : U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881
Notice u/s 251 of CrPC : 07.11.2022
Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Digitally signed
by shraddha
shraddha tripathi
tripathi Date:
2025.07.09
15:04:06 +0530
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of judgment : 09.07.2025
Final order : 09.07.2025
Factual Background
1. These proceedings have been initiated by the complainant under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (hereinafter 'NI Act'). It is the case of complainant that the accused approached him for a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- in September, 2019. Considering his request and the fact that the accused is a relative of the complainant, he lent the aforesaid loan amount on the assurance that the same shall be returned within a month. As per the complainant, in order to return the same, the accused issued the cheque in question bearing the following description which got dishonoured vide return memo dated 25.10.2019.
Sr. Cheque No. and Cheque amount Reason for
No date dishonour
1. 411454 dated 1,00,000/- Other Reasons-
23.10.2019 Non CTS
2. Upon receiving the knowledge of dishonour of the above cheques, the complainant served a legal demand notice dated 23.11.2019 upon the accused requiring him to make the necessary payment. However, upon the failure of the accused to Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:04:14 +0530 pay the cheque amount within 15 days, the present proceedings under Section 138 NI Act were initiated by the complainant against the accused.
3. To fortify his case, the complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex CW 1/X and relied upon the following documentary evidences:
Sr. No Document Exhibit Number
1. Cheque bearing no. 411454 Ex CW1/A
dated 23.10.2019
2. Return memo dated 25.10.2019 Ex CW1/B
3. Copy of legal demand notice Ex CW1/C
4. Courier Receipt Ex CW1/D
5. Tracking Report Ex CW1/E
Case Proceedings
4. Upon the appearance of accused, notice of accusation under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'CrPC') was framed on 07.11.2022 and substance of allegations against the accused was accordingly explained to him to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The same was duly recorded alongwith his plea of defence.
5. Thereafter, upon permitting the accused to cross- examine CW1 under section 145 (2), NI Act, CW1 was cross- examined and discharged on 16.11.2022 and CE was closed vide order dated 08.07.2024.
6. On 08.07.2024, the Statement of Accused was recorded as per the terms of Section 313 CrPC read with Section Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Date: tripathi 2025.07.09 15:04:20 +0530 281 CrPC explaining the incriminating substances, that appear in evidence against him. The accused explained that he had given the cheque in question to his brother for the purposes of payment to a supplier for construction of his house. There was a matrimonial dispute between his brother and his wife and a complaint was pending in the Women Cell. The complainant threatened them that he has a cheque of the accused and he shall file a case against the accused. Due to this the accused visited the bank and placed a written request to stop payment for all the three cheques he had handed over to his brother. Post the recording of statement of accused, the matter was fixed for leading Defence Evidence. The accused moved an application under section 315 CrPC alongwith the list of witness. The accused appeared as DW 1 and his brother Narender as DW 2 and were examined, cross-examined & discharged on 07.02.2025. Thereafter, the matter was later fixed for final arguments.
Submissions on behalf of Complainant
7. Ld counsel for the complainant submitted that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant in return of loan amount advanced by the complainant to the accused.
8. He submitted that the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs 1,00,000/- to the accused in September, 2019. He submitted that the accused is the brother of his daughter's husband which is why the loan was advanced.
9. He submitted that the accused handed over the cheque in question to return the amount which was dishonoured Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Date: tripathi 2025.07.09 15:04:25 +0530 and despite the service of legal demand notice, he did not return the loan so advanced and the present case was filed.
10. Ld counsel also submitted that the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. It has also been submitted by Ld counsel that in lieu of the presumptions of Section 139, NI Act in favour of the complainant and the fact that the same remain unrebutted, all the ingredients under Section 138 NI Act have been duly met and the liability of the accused has been established and thus he be convicted of the offence.
Submissions on behalf of Accused
11. Ld counsel for the accused submitted that the daughter of the complainant had filed a complaint against the brother of accused and their family members. In such a situation no reason lies for the complainant to advance the said loan.
12. He submitted that the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter was residing with him at the time of advancing loan. Thus, he submitted no reason lies before him to advance the said loan amount.
13. He submitted that there is no written agreement to this effect. Further, the daughter of complainant has not been examined by him.
14. Ld counsel submitted that it is the case of complainant that he had advanced the loan in the presence of his wife, however even she has not been examined.
15. Ld counsel submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute pending between the brother if accused and his wife and Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:04:30 +0530 the latter had taken the cheque on question and presented the same.
16. He submitted that the cheque in question is a non- CTS cheque which is an invalid negotiable instrument.
17. Ld counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under section 139 NI Act to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Ld counsel submitted that due to insufficiency of evidences of the complainant, he has failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and thus the accused be acquitted.
Analysis and findings
18. Learned counsels of both the parties have been heard at length and documents on record have been perused.
19. Sec 138, NI Act was introduced with the objective of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. The provision intends to discourage people from not honouring their commitments by way of payment through cheques. To attract liability under section 138, NI Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account and the same be presented to the bank within a period of three months Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Date: tripathi 2025.07.09 15:04:35 +0530 from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque is 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.
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 dishonour of cheque.
Fifth Ingredient: 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.
20. The cheque dated 23.10.2019 was presented for honour within the stipulated time and the same were returned as dishonoured vide return memo dated 25.10.2019 for reasons "Other Reasons- non CTS cheque". Ld counsel for the accused Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Date: tripathi 2025.07.09 15:04:40 +0530 has contested the case on the ground that non-CTS cheques are not valid negotiable instruments and thus, a case under Section 138 NI Act is not maintainable. As of now, there is no authoritative pronouncement of the parent High Court on this point of law. However, reliance can be placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Rohith v. Anil Kumar (2023) KHC 24782 wherein the Hon'ble Court held in favour of the validity of Non-CTS Cheques. It held "17. (8) The issue lies in a narrow campus. The transaction between the parties is not in dispute. What is issued by the petitioner is a non CTS cheque. The cheque truncated scheme was introduced by Reserve Bank of India in the year 2011 and the scheme was still in operation up to 31.12.2018. Therefore, on and from 01.01.2019, the non CTS cheque would lose its validity. The Reserve Bank of India further clarifies that though the non CTS cheque loses its value from 01.01.2019, it would still be valid as a 'Negotiable Instrument'.
(9) In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, the proceedings instituted by the complainant before the concerned court cannot be seen to be tumbling down."
Hon'ble court referred to the RBI circular which reads as, "4. Are non-CTS cheques invalid?
Banks have been advised to issue only CTS 2010 standard-compliant cheques from September 30, 2012. Earlier, there were separate clearing sessions for non- CTS cheques. However, they were discontinued with Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed shraddha by shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: 2025.07.09 15:04:46 +0530 effect from December 31,2018. As of now, non-CTS cheques cannot be presented in CTS. Banks have been advised to withdraw the non-CTS cheques from the customers. However, non-CTS cheques remain to be valid as a negotiable instrument."
21. Relying upon the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High, I am of the opinion that non-CTS cheques are valid negotiable instruments. The first ingredient is decided on favour of the complainant and against the accused.
22. Pertaining to the service of legal demand notice, the accused has stated during his admission/denial of documents under Section 294 CrPC that he is not aware if he received it or not.
In CC Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr (2007) 6 SCC 555, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, " Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Date: tripathi 2025.07.09 15:04:50 +0530
23. In the instant case, the accused has furnished the same address on his bail bonds and vakalatnama on which the legal demand notice was sent. Further, the accused has at no point of time disputed the address on which legal notice was sent. Thus, in lieu of the above reproduced dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the findings stated herein, this court holds that the legal notice Ex CW1/C dated 23.11.2019 was served upon the accused. The fact of non-payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed in the legal demand notice is also not disputed. Therefore, the fourth and fifth ingredient is also decided in favour of the complainant and against the accused.
24. Referring to the statutory mandate, as laid in Section 118 and Section 138 NI Act that once signatures on the cheque are admitted by the accused, presumptions under these provisions take the forefront. The presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 NI Act relate to the fact that the cheque in question was issued in lieu of consideration and for a legally recoverable debt/liability. The stipulated provisions incorporate the word 'shall', thereby making the presumption a mandatory presumption. However, loading the provision with the phrase "unless the contrary is proved" clarifies that albeit the presumption is a mandatory presumption, it is rebuttable and the onus to rebut the presumption lies upon the accused.
25. Regarding the strength and nature of presumption raised under section 139 NI Act, it is worthwhile to peruse the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (2011 (1) SCC (CRI) 184) wherein it ruled, Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed shraddha by shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: 2025.07.09 15:05:10 +0530 "As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:05:14 +0530 not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
26. Thus, it is a settled legal position that in order to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 NI Act, the accused ought to take the responsibility on his shoulders and clear himself of the cloud of legal liability cast upon him by the complainant to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. The effect of this presumption is that it shifts the evidential burden on the accused to prove that the cheque was infact not issued towards the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The accused can choose to do so either by cross-examining the complainant and complainant witnesses or by leading his defence evidence or both. In the instant case, the accused has chosen to discharge his evidential burden by adopting both the avenues.
Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:05:18 +0530
27. In the instant case, since the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque in question, the presumptive force of Section 139 and Section 118 NI Act gets activated. Thus, what remains for judicial scrutiny before this court is whether the accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions under Section 139 read with Section 118 NI Act.
28. As already discussed above, the premise of the present case is a loan of Rs 1,00,000/- advanced in cash by the complainant to the accused in September, 2019. It is the defence of accused that the complainant is the father-in-law of his elder brother and a matrimonial dispute is pending between his brother and his wife. The cheque in question was handed over by him to his brother for paying a supplier for the purposes of construction work in their house in 2016. However, the amount of the said cheque was given by way of cash by the accused therefore the cheque was returned to his brother by the supplier.
The cheque remained in the possession of his brother. Later during a counselling session in 2019 at CAW, the complainant threatened them of filing a case against the accused as they have a cheque of his. Due to this, the accused gave stop payment instructions to the banker.
29. The accused stepped into the witness box as DW1 and deposed the above stated defence. In support of his case, the accused placed on record, a complaint filed by his brother against his wife in 2016. He further placed on record a complaint filed before the DCP, PS Malviya Nagar by the wife of brother, i.e. the daughter of complainant against his brother Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:05:22 +0530 and their family. Same is Mark D. The complainant has not challenged or raised any objection on Mark D. The accused has also examined his brother namely Narender as DW 2 as a defence witness. And DW 2 has corroborated the testimony of the accused. He deposed that a matrimonial discord was pending between his wife and himself. At one of the counselling sessions the complainant threatened him of roping his brother in a criminal case as he has the latter's signed cheque. During his cross-examination, Ld counsel for the complainant himself raised a question to DW 2 asking him as to since when he was residing separately from his wife. To this the accused answered that he was residing separately since 2019. No suggestion denying the fact of separation was given by Ld counsel for the accused. It is distinctly clear that the fact of matrimonial discord between the brother of accused and his wife is not under dispute. Thus, the familial circumstances as introduced by the accused in his defence hold a firm ground and shake the foundation of the complainant's case. It is his case that he lent the alleged loan to the accused on 23.09.2019. During his cross- examination, the complainant was specifically questioned on the fact as to where his daughter was residing at the time of advancing the alleged loan. To this the complainant answered that his daughter was residing with him at the relevant time. Thus, it is clear that the wife of DW 2 was living separately from him. The fact of separation is pivotal to the instant case and raises eyebrows upon the case of complainant. Reading the instant case in the societal compass, it is atypical of any father to advance loan to a person of his daughter's husband's family Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed shraddha by shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: 2025.07.09 15:05:29 +0530 when the daughter is residing with him. In other words, it is highly unlikely of any reasonable person to advance loan to a member of his daughter's in laws' house in such a situation. These strained family relations have a direct implication upon the truthfulness of the case of complainant.
30. The complainant has also failed to disclose the purpose of loan. At no instance, i.e. in his complaint, evidence by way of affidavit or his cross-examination, the complainant has disclosed the purpose for which the accused had availed the loan. Albeit non-disclosure of the purpose of loan is not fatal to the case of complainant but where circumstances such as those which exist in the present case hover, the case of complainant yearns for such specific details for sustenance. Infact, these omissions begin to cast a doubt cast upon the case of complainant.
31. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the observation of Hon'ble SC in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54, "45. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This however, Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:05:35 +0530 shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have been rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely, presumption of innocence as a human right and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same."
32. It can be deduced from the above authority that the presumption as well as the burden of proof of the accused is to be delicately balanced and the balancing scale, undoubtedly must rest on the principles of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, justice and equity. As already stated above, the accused need not prove his case to the hilt but only to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Circumstances that pave their way in during the trial via oral and documentary evidences play a crucial role in placing the case of parties in context. Here, right from the stage of framing of notice till the stage of defence evidence, the accused has remained consistent in his defence that due to an impending matrimonial discord between his brother and his wife, he has been roped in this case solely for the purposes of revenge. These circumstances have not been challenged by the Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.07.09 15:05:40 +0530 complainant at any stage. Rather he has admitted the fact that his daughter was residing with him at the time of loan. The possibility of motive of vengeance due to the matrimonial discord cannot be ruled out in the present case. Such circumstances as enlightened by the accused cannot be ignored. Infact, they lend sturdiness to the defence of accused and raise probabilities in support of his defence.
33. It is a crystallised position of law that the case of complainant must stand on its own legs and in no instance, it can stand taking the support of the weakness or loopholes in the defence of accused. Further, it is a crystallised legal principle that to attribute culpability to the accused, the accused 'must be guilty' and not 'may be guilty'. The probabilities preponderated by the accused create a serious doubt in the case of complainant.
And when a doubt arises in the story of prosecution/complainant, the benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused and his conviction cannot sustain in law.
34. In the teeth of the above analysis, I have no hesitation in opining that the accused has successfully created a doubt in the case of complainant and the second ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act remains unfulfilled. The same is decided in favour of the accused and against the complainant.
Conclusion
35. All the legal requirements constituting an offence under Section 138 NI Act are cumulative in nature. As the second legal requirement has not been proved in favour of Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar Digitally signed by shraddha tripathi shraddha Date:
tripathi 2025.07.09 15:05:44 +0530 complainant, the ingredients necessary to bring home the guilt of accused remain incomplete. Accordingly, accused Pradeep Kumar is hereby held 'not guilty' and consequently acquitted of the offence under Section 138 NI Act.
36. This judgment contains 18 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website.
Announced in the open Court.
Digitally signedshraddha by shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: 2025.07.09 15:05:48 +0530 (Shraddha Tripathi) JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-03 (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi, 09.07.2025 Ramesh Chander Vs. Pradeep Kumar