Delhi District Court
Chanderpal Singh Rawat vs Yogesh Kanwar on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVDEEP GUPTA, JMFC (NI ACT-02)
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
Ct. Case No. 19737/2018
Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar
P.S. Burari
1. CNR No. : DLCT020357252018
2. Name and address of the : Sh. Chanderpal Singh Rawat
complainant S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh
R/o Khasra No. 51/5, Street
No. 2, Pradhan Enclave,
Burari, Delhi - 110084
3. Name and address of the : Sh. Yogesh Kanwar
Accused S/o Sh. Mohan
R/o H. No. 53/14/2, E-Block
Ground Floor, Near Shiv
Mandir, Pradhan Enclave,
Burari, Delhi - 110084
4. Offence complained : U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : Conviction
7. Date of institution : 01.12.2018
8. Arguments heard on : 06.04.2026
9. Date of judgement : 15.04.2026
Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 1 of 14
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in April 2016, accused approached him for financial help and took ₹ 2,75,000/- from May to October 2016 in instalments. Accused failed to repay the said amount. After hectic persuasions, accused issued a cheque bearing no. 373078 dated 01.10.2018 for an amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as cheque in question) in discharge of his liability.
2. Complainant presented the cheque in question, within the period of validity, for encashment at his bank. However, the cheque in question got dishonoured and was returned unpaid with remarks "Insufficient Fund" vide return memo dated 05.10.2018. Upon this, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 18.10.2018 to the accused which was duly received by the accused. However, the accused did not pay the amount of the dishonoured cheque in question within the mandatory period of 15 days from the receipt of legal demand notice. Hence, the complainant has moved this court with the present complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").
3. In his pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself as CW-1 vide affidavit Ex. CW1/A, reiterated the facts of the case and tendered following documents in evidence:
i. Ex. CW1/1 - Cheque in question Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 2 of 14 ii. Ex. CW1/2 - Return memo dated 05.10.2018 iii. Ex. CW1/3 - Copy of legal notice dated 18.10.2018 iv. Ex. CW1/4 - Speed post receipt v. Ex. CW1/5 - Tracking report vi. Ex. CW1/6 - Postal envelope vii. Ex. CW1/7 - Affidavit of correctness of address of accused
4. Upon prima facie consideration of pre-summoning evidence, accused Yogesh Kanwar was summoned. Upon his appearance, notice u/s 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C.") was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused admitted his signature on the cheque in question but denied filling the particulars therein. He denied receiving the legal notice sent by the complainant. Accused submitted that he knows the complainant but did not borrow any loan from him. He was not aware as to how the cheque in question came in possession of the complainant and stated that he did not issue the cheque in question. Cheque in question was of 2010 and the whole cheque book was stated to have been destroyed in rain. He claimed to have made the complaint regarding the cheque book in 2018. He denied any liability towards the cheque in question and claimed the cheque to have been misused.
5. Oral application u/s 145(2) of the NI Act on behalf of accused was allowed and the complainant was recalled for examination. Complainant adopted his pre-summoning evidence as Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 3 of 14 post-summoning evidence and relied upon the documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/7. In his cross-examination, complainant deposed that he knows accused since 2014. He had a fast-food joint in Burari in 2016 and used to earn ₹ 3,000/- to ₹ 4,000/- every day. He was an income tax payee in 2016 but did not show the loan in question in ITR. He had given loan in question by way of cash in instalments. He did not remember the number of instalments or the exact dates on which loan was given. He did not enter into any written documentation with the accused qua the loan. He had taken approximately ₹ 1,00,000/- from his brother Rajender Rawat and rest of the amount of the loan was arranged by him from his personal savings. Rajender Rawat was present every time when loan amount was handed over to accused. Cheque in question was handed over in the year 2018. He denied to have stolen the cheque from the bike of accused and to have misused the cheque. He could not produce ITR for the FY 2016-17. No other witness was examined by the complainant and his evidence was closed.
6. Statement of the accused was recorded in terms of provision u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused denied to have taken loan of ₹ 2,75,000/- from the complainant. He denied giving the cheque in question to the complainant. He stated that he used to keep signed cheques in my bag and used to visit the shop of complainant and later, he came to know that his cheque book containing the cheque got misplaced. He admitted the fact of dishonour of cheque in question. He denied receiving the legal demand notice but admitted the address Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 4 of 14 mentioned therein to be correct. He admitted his signature on the cheque in question but denied filling the particulars therein. He denied any liability towards the complainant and claimed the cheque to have been misused. He stated to have gone to his bank and informed regarding the misplacing of cheques when he got to know about the same. He also got the payment of cheque stopped by the bank.
7. Accused opted to lead defence evidence but did not examine any witness in defence evidence despite opportunity being given. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were addressed by both the parties. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of complainant and accused.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued that complainant has been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and nothing contrary to the case of the complainant came on record during his cross-examination. Accused was stated to have admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but to have failed to prove his defence. Accused was also stated to have taken different defences at different stages of the trial but to have failed to prove any of them. Lastly, it was submitted that since the present case has been clearly established and as defence of accused remains unproved, accused be convicted.
Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 5 of 149. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that complainant is not entitled to any relief as accused had no liability towards the complainant towards the cheque in question. It was contended that the legally enforceable liability does not exist as the complainant misused the cheque in question and the same was not issued to him. Complainant was stated to have failed to prove his financial capacity as well as the transaction in question and to have examine the relevant witness. Accused was stated to have rebutted the presumptions by leading cogent evidence. Complainant was stated to have failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted.
INGREDIENTS & PRESUMPTIONS U/S 138 NI ACT
10. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is relevant to discuss law applicable to the present proceedings. It is trite that to establish the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant has to prove:
i. that the accused issued a cheque on an account maintained by him with a bank;
ii. that the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability, which is legally enforceable;
iii. that the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity;
iv. that the said cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured/ returned unpaid;Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 6 of 14
v. that the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque; and vi. that the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
11. Once the above-mentioned ingredients are established by the complainant and the execution of cheque is admitted by the accused, mandatory presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. Meaning thereby, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received the cheque in question in discharge of debt or liability.
12. In Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the presumptions under the NI Act are rebuttable and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof required for rebutting the presumptions is that of preponderance of probabilities and the accused can rely on evidence led by him or 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 referring to the circumstances upon which they rely. Further, in K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 458, it was Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 7 of 14 held that the presumptions cannot be rebutted upon a mere denial but only by leading cogent evidence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
13. Complainant claims that he prima facie satisfies all the aforesaid six conditions mentioned in paragraph number 10 and the offence u/s 138 NI Act is indeed made out against the accused. However, the accused has disputed the fulfilment of the said ingredients. The same is being considered hereinafter.
14. Complainant has filed on record the original cheque Ex.
CW1/1. Genuineness of the cheque is not disputed and it is apparent that the accused is the drawer of the said cheque. Accused has also admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Accused denied giving the cheque in question to the complainant and claimed the same to have been destroyed/misplaced. A complaint in this regard was stated to have been lodged but accused failed to bring any cogent evidence in this regard. Except bald averments, there is no material on record to substantiate the fact of cheque being destroyed/misplaced. Therefore, ingredient number (i) stands fulfilled in the present case.
15. The cheque in question was presented at the complainant's bank within the period of validity from the date on which it was drawn and same was returned dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient". The returning memo Ex. CW1/2 bears the fact of Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 8 of 14 dishonour of cheque in question. Therefore, ingredient number (iii) & (iv) also stand fulfilled in this case.
16. Complainant issued legal notice Ex. CW1/3 to the accused to make the payment of cheque amount. Accused denied receiving the legal demand notice but, at the time of recording of his statement, he admitted the address mentioned therein to be correct. In these facts, it would be apposite to look into the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 555', wherein it was observed that when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of proviso to Section 138(b) of NI Act stands complied with. Hence, this court is of the view that service of notice is deemed to have been affected upon the accused. Despite receipt of legal demand notice, accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant within the prescribed period. Therefore, ingredient number (v) & (vi) also stand fulfilled in this case.
17. Ld. Counsel for accused also raised doubts over fulfilment of ingredient number (ii) stating that accused did not have liability towards the complainant qua the amount mentioned in the cheque in question as no loan was by the complainant. The cheque in question was stated to have been misplaced and not to be handed over to the complainant.
Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 9 of 1418. To establish the legally enforceable liability, complainant in his evidence by way of affidavit deposed that in April 2016, accused approached him for financial help as he was facing financial crisis and took ₹ 2,75,000/- from May to October 2016 in instalments. Accused promise to repay the said amount by December 2016 but failed to do so. After hectic persuasions, accused issued the cheque in question for a lesser amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- to discharge his liability but upon presentation, the same got dishonoured.
19. In his cross-examination, complainant deposed that he had a fast-food joint in Burari in 2016 and used to earn ₹ 3,000/- to ₹ 4,000/- every day. Loan in question was given in cash in instalments but no written documentation qua the loan was prepared. He had taken approximately ₹ 1,00,000/- from his brother Rajender Rawat and rest of the amount of the loan was arranged by him from his personal savings. He did not show the loan in question in ITR. Rajender Rawat was present every time when loan amount was handed over to accused. Complainant remained consistent in his testimony and accused was unable to impeach his credibility. However, complainant failed to examined Rajender Rawat as his witness.
20. Accused admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature but claimed that the particulars on the cheque in question were not filled by him. However, it is settled law that once the signature on the cheque is admitted by the accused, presumptions Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 10 of 14 under section 118 read with section 139 of NI Act arise in favour of the complainant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197' held that it is irrelevant that another person filled the cheque if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer and particulars of cheque being filled by someone else do not invalidate the cheque. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Triyambak S Hegde v. Sripad, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 788' held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted or is undisputed, the presumptions in favour of the complainant are raised and remain in force until rebutted. The onus is now upon the accused to rebut the mandatory presumptions under the NI Act by raising a probable defence.
21. The primary defence taken by the accused to rebut the mandatory presumptions was that he did not hand over the cheque in question to the complainant. At the time of framing of notice, cheque book containing cheque in question was stated to have been destroyed in rain and complaint in this regard was made. However, at the time of recording of statement of accused, cheque was stated to have been misplaced and its payment was stated to have been stopped through bank. In the cross-examination of complainant, it was suggested that the cheque in question was stolen and misused by the complainant. However, complainant specifically denied the same and instead stated that the cheque in question was handed over in 2018. Accused took different defences at different stages but failed to bring any cogent evidence in this regard. Accused failed to examine any witness in his defence. Except bald Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 11 of 14 averments, there is no material on record to substantiate the defence of cheque in question being destroyed, stolen or misplaced.
22. It was argued that the complainant failed to furnish any documentary proof qua the transaction in question and legally enforceable liability cannot be stated to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the said argument falls flat as it is settled law that use of cash for monetary transaction does not invalidate the transaction merely due to the absence of receipts or banking records. Oral testimony is a valid and credible mode of proof of monetary transaction. Support is drawn from the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952' wherein it has been held that the view that any cash transaction above ₹ 20,000/- is illegal and void and does not fall within the definition of 'legally enforceable debt' is not tenable. Support is also drawn from the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Georgekutty Chacko v. M.N. Saji, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 878' wherein it was held that cash loan cannot be negated merely due to absence of documentary proof. In the present case, although complainant failed to bring any documentary proof qua the transaction in question but, by way of his oral testimony, he proved the advancement of loan in cash in instalments to the accused and accused failed to discredit his version.
23. Financial capacity of the complainant was also questioned.
Complainant was stated to have failed to bring any documentary Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 12 of 14 proof qua the loan and also to have failed to show the same in ITR. Complainant specifically deposed that he had taken approximately ₹ 1,00,000/- from his brother Rajender Rawat and rest of the amount of the loan was arranged by him from his personal savings. It is trite that presumption of valid debt is against the accused and in favour of the complainant. In 'Sanjay Arora v. Monika Singh, 2017 SCC Online Del 8897', Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that where there is a presumption of liability against the accused u/s 139 of the NI Act, onus is on him to rebut the said presumption and unless the accused substantiates his defence and rebuts the mandatory presumption, the complainant is not required to establish anything to prove the existence of liability. Although the complainant admitted not showing the loan transaction in the ITR but non-mentioning any advances given may entail consequences under the Income Tax Act and the same does not affect the case of the complainant. The liability of the accused under section 138 of the NI Act cannot be done away with simply because the complainant did not mention the loan amount in his ITR.
24. Accused failed to prove non-existence of legally enforceable liability towards the complainant. There is nothing on record to establish any reason due to which the complainant could not have presented the cheque in question. Apropos the defence of the accused, this court finds that the accused has failed to lead any cogent evidence and to create a reasonable doubt in the story of the complainant.
Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 13 of 14CONCLUSION
25. In view of the above findings and analysis, this court finds that the complainant has established beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of his liability and the accused has not been able to disprove the said fact. Accused has failed to prove his defence that the cheque in question was misplaced and misused by the complainant and that he did not have any liability towards the complainant. Accused has not been able to prove any probable defence even on a scale of preponderance of probabilities and has failed to demolish the case of the complainant. Mandatory presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act remain unrebutted and the case of the complainant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused Yogesh Kanwar is held guilty and is convicted of the offence u/s 138 NI Act, 1881.
NAVDEEP Digitally signed by
NAVDEEP GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.04.15
11:32:50 +05'30'
Pronounced in the open court Navdeep Gupta
on 15.04.2026 JMFC (NI Act)-02/Central
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
15.04.2026
This judgment contains fourteen pages in total.
Ct. Case No. 19737/2018 Chanderpal Singh Rawat v. Yogesh Kanwar Page 14 of 14