Delhi District Court
Robin Singh vs Bhart Singh Kashyap on 29 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02
NORTH WEST DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. APOORV BHARDWAJ
In case of:-
ROBIN SINGH ... Complainant
VERSUS
BHARAT SINGH KASHYAP ... Accused
JUDGMENT
a) Sl no. of the case : 6969/2018
b) CNR of the case : DLSW020-10098-2018
c) Date of institution 04.06.2018
d) Name, parentage Robin Singh
and address of the complainant : S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
R/o VPO Chandpur Dabas,
Delhi -81.
e) Name, parentage and address of the Bharat Singh Kashyap,
accused: S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o VPO Chandpur Dabas,
Delhi -81.
f) Offence complained of : 138 NI Act
g) Total cheque amount : 5,30,000/-
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
i) Reserved for judgement 06.01.2026
j) Final order : Acquitted
k) Date of Judgment : 29.01.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') by the complainant against the accused.
Factual Background
2. As per the version set out by the complainant, on account of friendly relations between the parties, the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs 5,30,000/- to the accused. In discharge of his liability, the accused had issued two cheques bearing no. 734123 for a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- and another cheque bearing no. 734122 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in discharge of his liability. The complainant presented the abovesaid cheques to his bank i.e. State Bank of India, however, the same were returned unpaid for the reason 'Account Closed'. Thereafter, legal demand notice was issued to the accused in regular course, however, he failed to pay the total cheques amount within 15 days thereof and hence the present case.
Trial & Proceedings before the Court
3. The accused was summoned and notice of the accusation was put to the accused under section 251 CrPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage, he admitted/denied the following aspects:-
3.1. Issuing the cheques in question : Denied. He stated that he had given the cheques to one Dilbagh Singh.
3.2. Signature on the cheques in question : Admitted Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.2 of 14 3.3. Receiving the legal demand notice : Admitted
4. The complainant was examined as CW-1 and he relied on pre-summoning evidence as post summoning evidence i.e on evidence by way of affidavit Ex CW1/A and on the following documents :-
4.1. Ex CW1/1 & CW1/3 i.e. the cheques in question 4.2. Ex. CW1/2 & CW1/4 i.e., the cheque returns memos 4.3. Ex. CW1/5 i.e. the legal notice 4.4. Ex. CW1/6 i.e. postal receipt
5. Thereafter, CW-1/complainant was cross-examined. During his cross-examination, the following notable points emerged:-
5.1. The accused was his friend and neighbour. He did not know the names of his wife and children. 5.2. He did not know any Dilbagh Singh. 5.3. The loan was granted in cash in presence of his father. No document was executed at the time of advancing of the loan.
5.4. He owned a taxi and earned around Rs 70,000/- per month.
5.5. Rs 5,30,000/- were available with him as his father had sold his land and this money was part of the sale consideration received by him. He had not filed any document regarding sale of land by his father. 5.6. He had received the reply to legal notice. 5.7. He denied various suggestions.
6. Thereafter CE was closed.
7. Thereafter a statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and opted to lead Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.3 of 14 defence evidence.
8. The accused examined Sh. Ali Ahmed as DW1. He stated that he was a friend of the accused and the accused had introduced him to Satvir for taking a loan. Satvir had arranged the loan of Rs 5 lakh from Dilbagh in the year 2009. He did not know their inter se relation. He had returned the loan in the year 2010. Accused had asked Dilbagh to return his two security cheques however, Dilbagh said that the same were misplaced. He was cross-examined on behalf of the complainant. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not know anything about this case and nor was he acquainted with the complainant.
9. The accused examined himself as DW2. He reiterated his defence that he had stood as a guarantor for Ali Ahmad who had taken a loan from Dilbagh on 09.10.2009. The cheques in question were handed over to Dilbagh at the request of father of the complainant. Ali Ahmad repaid the loan on 10.06.2010.
Thereafter, Dilbagh did not return the cheques to him rather he gave it to father of the complainant. Thereafter, the father of the complainant issued him a letter that the cheques had fallen in a pond. Thereafter, there were certain transactions between father of the complainant and Ali Ahmad and when dispute arose between them his allegedly misplaced cheques were misused by complainant. He was not a guarantor for the transactions between father of the complainant and Ali Ahmad. He produced the loan agreement between Dilbagh and Ali Ahmad as Ex DW1/1, loan repayment agreement between Dilbagh and Ali Ahmad as Ex DW1/2, acknowledgment by father of the complainant that he had Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.4 of 14 misplaced his cheques as Ex DW1/3 and complaint made to the Commissioner of Police as Ex DW1/4. He was also cross examined on behalf of the complainant. He admitted that there was no signature of Dilbagh or the complainant's father on Ex DW1/1 or Ex DW1/2. He admitted that only one cheque was mentioned in Ex DW1/1 and the complainant's name was not mentioned on any document. He denied the suggestions that DW1/3 was a forged document. He denied the suggestion that he had replied to the legal demand notice.
10. During the course of final arguments, Sh. Arun Bansal, Ld counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has duly proved its case by placing on record the entire documentary evidence and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption against him. Quite specifically it was submitted that the accused has failed to prove the existence of Dilbagh Singh and he remains a mystery figure throughout the trial. It was also submitted that the accused has failed to establish any relation of Ex DW1/1 & Ex DW1/2 with the complainant or prove the signatures of the complainant's father on Ex DW1/3. These were merely self-serving documents and the accused was making a desperate attempt to evade his liability by making imaginary bridges between an unconnected transaction between third parties and the present loan in question. The testimony of DW1 was liable to be discarded as he was an interested witness and the complaint made by the accused to the police was merely an afterthought.
11. Per contra, on behalf of the accused, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused has sufficiently rebutted the Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.5 of 14 presumption against him as the complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity to advance the loan or produce any document or evidence to corroborate the loan transaction. It was also submitted that the defence of the accused was consistent and probable and the same stood corroborated by DW1 who is an independent witness and by the documents filed by the accused. Written submissions were also filed, which have been carefully reviewed.
Legal Position:-
12. The foremost check point is whether the facts averred by the complainant fulfil the basic statutory requirement for constituting an offence under section 138 NI Act. To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following:-
(i) The accused must have drawn 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;
(ii) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) That cheque has been 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;
Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.6 of 14
(iv) That 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;
(v) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) 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.
Being cumulative it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under section 138 NI Act.
13. In the present case, the complainant has filed on record the original cheques as Ex. CW1/1 & Ex CW1/3. The genuineness of the cheques is not disputed. The accused has also admitted his signatures on the cheques in question.
Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.7 of 14 Therefore ingredient number (i) stands fulfilled in the present case.
14. The said cheques were presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which they were drawn and were returned dishonoured for the reason "Account Closed". The returning memos dated 04.05.2018 bearing the fact of dishonour of cheques in question has been exhibited by the complainant as Ex CW1/2 & Ex CW1/4. The genuineness of the returning memos is also not disputed by the accused.
Therefore ingredient number (iii) & (iv) also stand fulfilled in this case.
15. The complainant then sent a legal notice, Ex CW1/5 dated 08.05.2018. The original postal receipt dated 10.05.2018 has been placed on record as Ex CW1/6. The accused has admitted receiving the legal demand notice. The fact that the legal demand notice has made a clear and unambiguous demand for payment of the cheque amount(s) in question is also not disputed.
Therefore, the ingredient number (v) and (vi) are also fulfilled in the present case.
16. Now, I shall consider whether condition number (ii) i.e. the requirement that the cheque in question have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability is fulfilled or not. Towards this end, it is apt to discuss that a negotiable instrument including a cheque carries following Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.8 of 14 presumptions in terms of Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act.
Section 118 of the NI Act provides :
"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 been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"
Section 139 of the N.I Act further provides 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"
Thus, the combined effect of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. Therefore, existence of condition number (ii) is also presumed against the accused.
17. When the presumption is raised in favour of the complainant, the burden is shifted on the accused to disprove the case of the complainant by rebutting the presumption. The accused can displace this presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Lack of consideration or a legally enforceable debt need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as is the general rule in criminal cases. The accused has to make out a fairly plausible defence which is acceptable to the court. This the Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.9 of 14 accused can do either by leading his own evidence or by raising doubt /demolishing the material or evidence brought on record by the complainant. Reliance can be placed on Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418.
18. Further, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. 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 non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. The accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence to shift the burden again on the complainant. [Refer: Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v Amin Chand Pyarelal 1999 SCCOnline SC 188 and Kumar Exports v Sharma Carpets, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1885].
19. Also, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. Presumption of innocence as a human right needs to be delicately balanced with doctrine of reverse burden contained in section 139 of NI Act. [Reference can be made to Rangappa v Sri Mohan 2010 SCC OnLine SC 583 and Krishna Janardhan Bhat v Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.10 of 14 Dattatreya G Hegde 2008 (4) SCC 54].
20. Having referred to the above judicial pronouncements, I shall now analyse the record in their light.
Whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against him.
21. In the present case the main defence of the accused is that he had never taken any loan from the complainant and had stood as a guarantor for a loan between one Ali Ahmad and Dilbagh Singh. A transaction mediated by the father of the complainant namely Sh. Satbir Singh. As a security he had provided his cheques as security. The cheques were not returned to him despite Ali Ahmad repaying the loan and Satbir Singh issued a written statement that he had misplaced the aforesaid cheques. I have perused the record from this perspective and I make the following observations:-
21.1. The defence of the accused has been consistent throughout the trial.
21.2. As per the complainant, the entire loan amount of Rs 5,30,000/- was advanced to the accused in cash without any written documentation or receipt and in absence of any neutral witnesses.
21.3. The complainant has also stated that he was a cab operator at the relevant time earning around Rs 70,000/- per month. It is quite unbelievable that any prudent person would advance around two third of Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.11 of 14 his annual income to an acquaintance without any acknowledgment.
21.4. Not only is the financial capacity of the complainant
to advance the loan amount doubtful, the
complainant has also failed to explain the source of funds as well. As per his testimony the entire amount of Rs 5,30,000/- was lying at his residence in cash as his father had recently sold a property. No details of the property transaction were brought on record.
Quite conveniently, the loan amount was not withdrawn from any bank so as to afford any corroborative or circumstantial proof to indicate liquidity or capacity to the extent of the loan amount.
21.5. As per the complainant, the transaction was witnessed by his father. However, for reasons best known to him, he did not examine his father as a witness. Ultimately, there is no corroborative evidence of the entire loan transaction.
21.6. DW1 has supported the defence of the accused and has verified that he had taken a loan from one Dilbagh Singh through Satvir Singh and the accused had stood as guarantor. It is not disputed by the complainant that Satvir Singh is his father.
21.7. Indeed DW-1 is a friend of the accused however his testimony cannot be discarded for that reason only. From the nature of the transaction he appears to be Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.12 of 14 one of the better witnesses to substantiate the case of the accused. The testimony of DW1 cannot be lightly discarded on the ground that he is a friend of the accused especially when the same withstood the test of cross-examination and the complainant himself could not bring any cogent or believable evidence to support his version.
22. Lastly, coming to Ex DW1/3. As per this document, the father of the complainant had acknowledged that he had dropped the cheques in question in a pond and had confirmed that the liability qua the cheques had extinguished. I have considered the argument of Ld Counsel for the complainant that the accused has not proved the alleged statement Ex DW1/3 signed by the father of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt as the father of the complainant was never examined in this case. It is worth reiterating that the accused is not under an obligation to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is obligated merely to disclose a probable defence. Considering the cumulative weight of all the circumstances and evidence before me, I am of the view that on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against him.
Therefore ingredient no. (ii) has not been established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
23. In view of the evidence adduced, documents put forth and arguments advanced by the parties and further in view of the Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.13 of 14 above discussion, the court is of the considered view that Sh. Bharat Singh Kashyap is not guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is hereby acquitted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Announced in open court on 29.01.2026 Digitally signed
Judgment consists of 14 pages. APOORV by APOORV
BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ Date: 2026.01.29
17:24:44 +0530
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/29.01.2026
Ct Case No. 6969/2018 Robin Singh Vs. Bharat Kashyap Page no.14 of 14