Delhi District Court
Sanjay Chhabra vs Mohit Anand on 7 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT),
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
Presiding Officer - Manisha Bhau, Delhi Judicial Service
CT Case 879/2017
CNR No.: DLSH020060862016
In the matter of
SANJAY CHHABRA
S/o Balraj Chhabra,
R/o Flat no. 1/6134, Gali no. 3,
East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi110032 ...Complainant
versus
MOHIT ANAND
S/o O.P. Anand
R/o House no. 1/6136, Gali No. 2,
East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi 110032 ...Accused
Under offence Section 138, NI Act, 1881
Date of institution 19.09.2016
Plea of accused Not guilty
Date of reserving of judgment 18.12.2025
Date of pronouncement 07.04.2026
Decision Acquittal
1
CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. Heading Page number
A Case of the Complainant 2
B Proceedings before the Court 4
C Submissions 7
D Applicable Law 8
E Questions for Consideration 10
F Decision 18
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint instituted by the complainant against the accused under the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act").
A. CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
2. The substance of allegations, as contained in the complaint, are as follows:
2.1. The complainant and the accused had friendly and family relations and they were on visiting terms. In the first week of July 2013, the complainant, at the request of accused, provided a friendly loan of Rs. 3,58,000/ in cash at his house. The accused assured that he will repay the loan in the month of June 2016.
2.2. On 05.06.2016, the complainant demanded the repayment, and the accused issued three cheques against his legal liability, i.e., cheque bearing no. 509624 for Rs. 1,00,000/ dated 08.06.2016, cheque bearing no. 509638 for Rs. 1,00,000/ dated 08.06.2016, and cheque bearing no. 000009 for Rs. 1,58,000/ dated 21.07.2016, all drawn on Bank of Baroda, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the cheques" i.e., Ex. CW1/A, Ex. CW1/C, and Ex. CW1/E).
2 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand 2.3. However, upon presentation for encashment, all the cheques returned dishonoured with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer" vide bank return memo (Ex. CW1/B, Ex. CW1/D, and Ex. CW1/F).
2.4. On∙12.07.2016, complainant received a legal notice dated 12.06.2016 (Ex. CW1/G) from Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate, stating a concocted story that some cheques of the accused were missing including the aforesaid cheques and seeking the return of these cheques in question. The complainant sent a reply dated 15.07.2016 (Ex. CW1/H), through Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advocate, stating that the three cheques were issued in discharge of a legal liability. Vide a replication dated 19.07.2016, Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate, demanded the return of the three cheques within 3 days from the receipt of the legal notice, falling which he would initiate legal action.
2.5. On 21.07.2016, complainant gave a written complaint to the concerned SHO of P.S. Shahdara, Delhi (Ex. CW1/I) regarding fraud and cheating by the accused.
2.6. On instructions of the complainant, a legal demand notice was issued to the accused by his counsel on 02.08.2016 (Ex. CW1/K), which was sent to the accused at his correct address on 04.08.2016, vide speed post and it was delivered upon the accused on 05.08.2016. However, no reply or payment was received from the accused. Aggrieved thereby, complainant instituted the present complaint.
3 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand B. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. Upon summoning of the accused vide order dated 30.11.2016, he entered appearance on 18.03.2017.
4. On 16.05.2017, the substance of accusation was explained to him, and a notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offence. He stated that he would disclose his defence in his application under Section 145(2), NI Act. On the same date, the application moved by the accused under Section 145(2), NI Act was allowed.
5. Put briefly, it is stated in the abovesaid application of the accused as follows:
The accused knew the complainant as his neighbour. On 09.07.2016, the accused lodged an NCR vide LR No. 644901/2016 with PS Crime Branch, Delhi, regarding his lost chequebook, and also informed his bank in this regard on 11.07.2016. On 12.07.2016, at 08:43 AM, the accused received a call from the complainant whereby he threatened the accused regarding misuse of his cheques and disclosed to him that he was in custody of the cheques of the accused. The accused sent a legal notice to the complainant for return of his cheques, and also sent a complaint to SHO, P.S. Shahdara via speed post on 12.07.2016 and also filed a written complaint vide DD No. 57B dated 19.07.2016. It was stated that the accused did not have any legal liability to the complainant, and had never borrowed any money from him.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant led evidence as follows:
Oral Evidence CW1 Complainant (by way of affidavit i.e., Ex. CW1/A1) 4 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand CW2 Sh. Balraj Chhabra, Father of Complainant, S/o Late Fakeer Chand Chhabra (evidence by way of affidavit i.e., Ex. CW2/A) CW3 Smt. Meenu Chhabra, Wife of Complainant (evidence by way of affidavit i.e., Ex. CW3/A) Documentary Evidence Ex. CW1/A Original cheque bearing no. 509624 Ex. CW1/B Original bank return memo dated 23.07.2016 Ex. CW1/C Original cheque bearing no. 509638 Ex. CW1/D Original bank return memo dated 23.07.2016 Ex. CW1/E Original cheque bearing no. 000009 Ex. CW1/F Original bank return memo dated 27.07.2016 Ex. CW1/G Legal notice dated 12.06.2016 sent by accused through his counsel Ex. CW1/H Reply of complainant dated 15.07.2016 Ex. CW1/I Copy of complaint dated 21.07.2016 sent by complainant to SHO P.S. Shahdara Ex. CW1/K Legal demand notice dated 02.08.2016 sent by accused to complainant Ex. CW1/L Original postal receipt dated 04.08.2016 Ex. CW1/M Internet generated tracking report of post
7. The evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant contained the same averments as the complaint.
8. On 10.05.2018, the complainant was crossexamined and discharged. On 24.01.2019, Mr. Balraj Chhabra, CW2/father of the complainant, was examined, crossexamined, and discharged. Smt. Meenu Chhabra, CW3/wife of the complainant was examined, and crossexamined on 10.03.2021, 12.09.2022, and 16.11.2022. She was discharged on 16.11.2022, and complainant evidence was thereafter closed.
9. The statement under Section 313, CrPC, of the accused was recorded on 09.12.2022 after all the incriminating material on record was put to him. He stated, inter alia, as follows:
5 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand "The cheque in question belongs to me and bears my signatures but the other particulars are not in my handwriting. I had lost my cheque book containing the cheques in question on 09.07.2016 and I had lodged a complaint with the police in this regard and had also given intimation to the bank. 1 know the complainant as he is my neighbour. I have no legal liability towards the complainant. I received a call from the complainant on 12.07.2016 and it is only then that l came to know the cheques in question are in possession of the complainant. On the same date, I sent a legal notice to the complainant and a complaint to the SHO and DCP in this regard. Upon receiving reply to the legal notice from the complainant I sent another notice to him. On 19.07.2016, I made another complaint in this regard."
10.On 12.01.2023, an application under Section 315, CrPC, moved by the accused was allowed. Accused led his defence evidence as follows:
Oral Evidence DW1 Accused DW2 Head Constable Sandeep, No.2982/Noth East, Record Clerk, Complaint Branch, DCP Office, Seelampur, Delhi DW3 ASI Ravinder Kumar, No. 295/Crime from CRO Crime Branch DW4 Mr. Vishwajeet Prasad, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara Branch, Delhi32 Documentary Evidence Ex.DWl/1 NCR bearing no. LR644901/2016 dated 09.07.2016 regarding loss of documents Ex.DWl/2 Certified copy of loss of cheque book addressed to Bank of Baroda dated 11.07.2016 Mark A (Colly) Copy of legal notice dated 12.06.2016 along with postal receipt Ex.DWl/3 (Colly) Copy of complaint to SHO, PS Shahdara along with postal receipt Ex.DW2/A and Certified copies of order dated 16.9.2020 and 29.07.2022 Ex.DW2/B regarding record of complaint dated 12.07.2016 Ex.DW3/A and Ex. Certified copy of complaint made by Accused vide LR DW3/B number 644901/16 dated 09.07.2016 EPS Crime Branch along with certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.DW4/D1. Statement of account pertaining to account no.
35730100000617 of accused for the period 01.07.2016 to 31.07.2016.
6 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand Ex.DW4/D2 "Stop payment" record from the bank account of the (colly.) accused
11. On 21.08.2023, DW2 was examined and discharged, and DW1 was examinedinchief. DW1 was crossexamined on 16.10.2023 and further crossexamined and discharged on 05.02.2024. DW3 was examined and discharged on 15.07.2024. DW4 was examined and discharged on 25.11.2024. The matter was thereafter listed for final arguments.
C. SUBMISSIONS
12. Final arguments were heard at length from both sides.
13. Ld. Counsel for complainant made the following submissions:
13.1. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque. He has not disputed service of the legal demand notice. The accused has not disputed that the cheques were dishonoured from his bank account.
Thus, the presumption is in favour of the complainant, and all ingredients for an offence under Section 138, NI Act, stand satisfied.
13.2. The complainant has been defrauded by the accused. The accused has enjoyed benefits of the money of the complainant for the last many years.
13.3. The falsity of the defence of the accused is clear from the fact that the bank witness stated that the cheques for which stop payment instructions were issued by the accused were from different chequebooks, whereas, the accused has stated that he had only lost his chequebook.
7 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand 13.4. The accused has admitted that he had to repay the amount to the complainant, as he deposed that the complainant threatened him to repay the amount. This shows that there was a monetary transaction between the parties. Moreover, the fact that the accused did not initiate any legal proceedings against the complainant shows that his defence is fabricated.
14.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused, submitted the following arguments:
14.1. The complainant has failed to establish a coherent case. This is a false and fabricated case. The complainant has failed to prove the alleged transaction.
14.2. Despite receiving the notice from the accused regarding his lost cheques, the complainant presented the cheques of the accused knowing very well that such cheques would not be encashed. The complainant has acted with a malafide intention.
14.3. The accused has duly proved his defence. He made a complaint and lodged an NCR with the concerned police authorities, and issued instructions to his bank as well.
14.4. All complainant witnesses, i.e., the complainant, his father, and his wife have made contradictory statements about the alleged events.
Their testimony as to the funds as well as how and in whose presence the money was alleged given is contradictory.
D. APPLICABLE LAW: INGREDIENTS AND PRESUMPTIONS UNDER NI ACT
15. Section 138 of the NI Act reads as under:
8 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-- 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 discharge, 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 amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision 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 validity, 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 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; 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."
16. In order to establish the offence under Section 138, NI Act, the following necessary ingredients of the offence must be fulfilled:
First A person issued a cheque 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;
Second The cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
9 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand Third The cheque was presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
Fourth The cheque returned 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;
Fifth The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
Sixth The drawer of such cheque failed 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.
E. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
17. The record has been carefully perused.
18. The accused has not disputed that the cheques and signature on the cheques belong to him. It is also not disputed that the cheques were presented within their validity period, and that they were dishonoured on the ground that payment was stopped by the drawer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 13 SCC 375, that if the payment of a cheque is stopped by the drawer, the same would attract the provision under Section 138, NI Act. Accordingly, the first, third, and fourth ingredient are fulfilled.
10 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand
19. It is not disputed that the legal demand notice was addressed and dispatched to the correct address of the accused. Therefore, the presumption of due service arises in favour of the complainant in view of Section 27, General Clauses Act, read with Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 119, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Nothing has been put forth by the accused, being the addressee, that there was any interruption in the ordinary course of business or that the address to which legal demand notice was sent was the incorrect address. Therefore, the fifth ingredient also stands fulfilled.
20. It is also not disputed that the accused did not make any payment in lieu of the demand made by the complainant in the legal demand notice. Thus, the sixth ingredient stands fulfilled.
21. The only ingredient now left to be examined is the second ingredient, that is, whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to examine the scope of the presumptions as envisaged by the provisions of Section 118, NI Act, and Section 139, NI Act.
22. Section 139, NI Act, reads as follows:
"Presumption in favour of holder: 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"
23. Further, Section 118(a) of the NI Act, states:
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.--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 11 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date: that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance: that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer: that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;
(e) as to order of indorsements: that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
(f) as to stamps: that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course: that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him."
[Emphasis supplied]
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, interpreted the aforesaid provisions as follows:
"19. The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words "unless the contrary is proved"
in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable...
20. ...The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the nonexistence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At 12 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist..."
[Emphasis supplied]
25. On the issue of presumption arising in favour of the complainant, the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, are reproduced for reference:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Sections 118 (a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:
25.1. 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.
25.2. 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.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the 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.
25.4. 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 and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence..."
[Emphasis supplied] 13 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand
26. In the present facts, the presumption under Section 139, NI Act, arises in favour of the complainant.
27. DW1/accused, in his examinationinchief, tendered documents in evidence, i.e., Ex.DWl/1 to Ex.DWl/3. In his crossexamination, he deposed, inter alia, that the complainant is his neighbour and he has never borrowed any amount from the complainant. The accused stated that he had lodged a complaint regarding loss of his cheques on 09.07.2016 and issued stop payment instructions on 11.07.2016. He further stated after he received a call from the complainant on 12.07.2016, he sent a legal notice to the complainant on the very same day. He denied the suggestion that the cheques in question pertained to different cheque books, or that these cheques did not pertain to the chequebook qua which the complaint was lodged by the accused.
28. DW2, Record Clerk from DCP office, Seelampur, furnished two copies of the orders of DCP, North East District, to the effect that the complaints sought to be summoned had been weeded out and destroyed in the course of record keeping.
29. DW3, CRO, Crime Branch, tendered in evidence a certified copy of the complaint filed by the accused dated 09.07.2016 regarding loss of his cheque book.
30. DW4 from Bank of Baroda, deposed, inter alia, in his examination that there were a total of 27 cheques of the accused which returned dishonoured with the remark "stop payment by the drawer", and these 27 cheques belonged to different chequebooks.
14 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand
31. It is settled law that the accused can disprove the case of the complaint by relying upon the material and circumstances relied upon by the complainant.
32. Upon a careful perusal of the record, significant contradictions are notable in crossexamination of the complainant witnesses by Ld. Counsel for the accused. The same are as follows:
32.1. The complainant stated in his crossexamination on 10.05.2018 that he arranged the loan in question from himself and from his father.
He stated that his father withdrew a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ from his bank account. Mr. Balraj Chhabra (CW2/ father of the complainant) also deposed that he withdrew a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ from his account maintained with UCO Bank. However, in his further crossexamination, and upon confrontation with his passbook (Mark X) by Ld. Counsel for accused, Mr. Balraj admitted that the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ was not withdraw by him, but instead, it was withdrawn by way of a cheque issued in favour of one Mr. Manoj Kumar, a builder who is wellknown to Mr. Balraj. This is completely contradictory to the previous statements of both complainant and his father. One of the primary sources of the loan amount was previously deposed to have been a cash withdrawal by Mr. Balraj from his bank account, but subsequently, this was admittedly found to be inconsistent with his bank record.
Mr. Balraj then stated that said Mr. Manoj Kumar withdrew the amount for him and he had given the cheque to him because Mr. Balraj was unable to visit the bank physically. Such a deposition 15 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand does not inspire any confidence because not only has Mr. Balraj contradicted his previous statement, but he has also failed to explain as to why he gave a cheque of an amount as large as Rs. 6,00,000/ to a thirdperson for withdrawal of cash from the bank. His statement is contradictory, as well as improbable for a reasonable and prudent person.
32.2. As discussed above, the complainant deposed that he partly arranged the loan himself, and partly from his father. His wife, Smt. Meenu Chhabra (CW3) stated that her fatherinlaw had given the entire amount of Rs. 3,58,000/ to the complainant. These two statements are evidently contrary on the aspect of source of funds.
32.3. The complainant also deposed that the loan was advanced to the accused in the presence of his wife, and his father. This was also corroborated by his wife during her crossexamination, as she stated that she and her her fatherinlaw were present when the amount was given to the accused. However, Mr. Balraj Chhabra, stated the opposite in his crossexamination, i.e., he stated that that the loan was not advanced to the accused in his presence and further stated that he was only informed about the loan by his son.
32.4. The wife of the complainant also deposed that the loan amount was arranged by her fatherinlaw in lieu of a collaboration agreement with the builder. It can be inferred that she is referring to the same builder, Mr. Manoj Kumar, who was mentioned by her fatherin law. It is interesting to note that as per the copy of passbook of Mr. Balraj, the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ was withdrawn for him by Mr. Manoj Kumar in March, 2016, whereas, the loan was allegedly 16 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand advanced to the accused in July, 2016. It is not clear as to why and how the amount was arranged by the father of the complainant more than 3 months before the loan was even demanded.
32.5. The complaint sent by the complainant to P.S. Shahdara is dated 21.07.2016 (Ex. CW1/I). This complaint states that "all the cheques were deposited for encashment but the same were returned unpaid" and makes further allegations to the concerned SHO, whilst requesting that action may be taken against the accused for his fraudulent behaviour. However, all bank return memo in the present case are dated after the date of this abovesaid complaint to the SHO. The two bank return memo pertaining to cheque no. 509624 and 509638 are dated 23.07.2016, and one bank return memo for cheque no. 000009 is dated 27.07.2016, whereas, the complaint is dated 21.07.2016. Thus, it is clear that the complaint to the SHO (Ex. CW1/I) was created antedated by the complainant, and in the process of drafting such an antedated document, he failed to realise that he gave it a date much prior to the dishonour of the cheques. In fact, one of the cheques i.e., cheque no. 000009 is itself dated 21.07.2016.
33. The accused, whose primary defence is that the complainant came into possession of his lost cheques, has proved the steps taken by him regarding his lost chequebooks. He filed an NCR with the police, and sent a complaint to the concerned police station regarding misuse of his lost cheques. He also sent a legal notice to the complainant in this regard prior to the presentment of the cheques. The defense of the accused has to be proved only on the threshold of preponderance of probabilities, and in view of the various and 17 CT Case 879/2017 Sanjay Chhabra v. Mohit Anand significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant witnesses, there is sufficient reason to conclude that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption raised in favour of the complainant.
34. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the complainant has proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt. Overall, there are various consistencies between the statements of all the complainant witnesses. The evidence as to the source and arrangement of funds, and the circumstances and witnesses in whose presence it was allegedly advanced, is inconsistent. This is more significant when the case pertains to a cash loan, advanced without execution of any written agreement or promissory note, and of a sum as high as Rs. 3,58,000/. The complaint and evidence affidavit of the complainant are also bereft of even a single reason for which the loan was advanced. Accordingly, the second ingredient regarding the issuance of the cheque against legally enforceable debt or liability is not fulfilled.
35. In conclusion, all the ingredients necessary for constituting an offence under Section 138, NI Act, are not fulfilled in the present complaint.
F. DECISION
36. The accused Mr. Mohit Anand stands hereby acquitted for the offence under Section 138, NI Act, with respect to the cheques in question in the Digitally present case.1 signed by MANISHA MANISHA BHAU BHAU Date:
2026.04.09 17:53:33 +0530 (MANISHA BHAU) JMFC NI ACT / SHAHDARA, KKD 07.04.2026 1 Pronounced in open court on 07.04.2026 This judgement comprises of 18 pages, and each page has been signed by me.
18