Delhi District Court
Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini on 13 April, 2026
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN
COMPLIANCE WITH
"SUHAS CHAKMA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" W.P
(C)1082/20
COVERSHEET TO THE COPY OF JUDGMENT
The convict has been informed that the convict may avail free
legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies. The
following Authority may be contacted for seeking appropriate
guidance:
District Legal Services Authority, North-East District
Address of the Authority: Room No. 35, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Digitally
Phone Number: 9667992794, 011-22101335 signed by
NISHTHA
NISHTHA MEHTANI
MEHTANI Date:
E-mail: northeast-dlsa@nicin 2026.04.13
15:46:39
+0530
(Signature of Presiding
Officer)
Date:- 13.04.2026
CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani)
Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 1 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD
DLNE020008282021
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHTHA MEHTANI, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT, NORTH EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOMA COURT, DELHI
CC NO: 121/2021
P. S. Karawal Nagar
U/s 138 NI Act
Girish Joshi Vs. Darshan Saini
JUDGMENT
1. CCNo. : 121/2021
2. Date of institution of the case : 15.02.2021
3. Name of complainant : Girish Joshi s/o late Sh. Daya Kishan Joshi R/o H.No. D-323, Street No.2, Nehru Vihar, North East, Delhi-110094
4. Name of accused, parentage and address : Darshan Saini s/o Sh. Harnam Saini R/o H.No. A-38/1, Jagat Puri, Delhi-110051
5. Offence complained of : 138 N. I. Act
6. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Conviction
8. Date on which order was : 25.03.2026 reserved NISHTHA
9. Date of pronouncement : 13.04.2026 MEHTANI CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Digitally signed by Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 2 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 15:46:54 +0530 FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose off the present complaint case instituted by the Complainant invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(as in after referred to as NI Act).
2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint case, as per the complainant, may be summarized as hereafter: That the complainant and the accused were having friendly relations with the complainant since a long time. That on 20.07.2020, the accused had approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.95,000/-. Considering the request and friendly relation of the accused, the complainant had given Rs. 95,000/- to the accused as friendly loan in the presence of a witness on 20.07.2020 and the accused assured to return the same on or before 20.08.2020. That the accused had also executed a pronote in favour of the complainant. That on 25.08.2020 the accused on demand by the complainant for his loan amount, in due discharge of his admitted liability, issued one cheque bearing no.000008 dt. 25.08.2020 of Rs.95,000/-, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Defence Enclave Branch, New Delhi-110092 (hereinafter the "cheque in question") with an assurance that same would be honored on its presentation by his banker. That when complainant presented the abovesaid cheque in question for encashment with his banker i.e. Bank of India, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094, same were returned unpaid with NISHTHA remarks "funds insufficient" vide returning memo dt. 17.11.2020.
MEHTANI That when accused did not pay the said amount after repeated Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:47:10 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 3 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD requests, complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 08.12.2020 calling upon the accused to pay the amount of the aforesaid cheque within the stipulated period but the accused did not make the payment within the statutory period, hence the present complaint.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
3. The complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon following evidences:-
a) Evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A
b) Pronote dt. 20.07.2020 Ex. CW1/1
c) Original cheque no. 000008 Ex. CW1/2
d) Returning memo dt. 17.11.2020 Ex. CW1/3
e) Legal notice dt. 08.12.2020 Ex. CW1/4
f) Postal receipt Ex. CW1/5
g) Tracking report Mark A
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and notice under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) was served upon accused on 18.03.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused took the defence that he does not know the complainant and that he did not take any amount from the complainant. He stated that he did not give the cheque in NISHTHA question to the complainant and that he had given the cheque in MEHTANI question signed in blank to one Kamal from whom he had Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:47:23 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 4 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD borrowed Rs.30,000/- on interest and he had paid 5-6 installments to Kamal. He also stated that Kamal had obtained his signatures on blank pronote. The Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but denied the other details on the cheque in question being filled by him. Accused had denied having received the legal demand notice sent by the complainant but admitted his address on the same to be correct.
5. The complainant has only examined himself as CW1. In the post summoning evidence, the complainant (CW1) has adopted his pre-summoning evidence. Despite opportunity the accused has failed to file application U/s. 145(2) NI Act. Accordingly, the right of the accused to cross examine the complainant was closed vide order dt. 16.07.2024 and hence, the CE was closed.
6. Accused was, thereafter, examined U/s 281 r/w Sec 313 Criminal Procedure code, 1872 on 13.10.2025 wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque in question and denied the other details of cheque being filled by him. Accused had denied having received the legal demand notice. Thereafter the matter was fixed for DE.
7. Accused has only examined himself as DW-1 in his defence. NISHTHA MEHTANI Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:47:37 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 5 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD Thereafter, defence evidence was closed vide order dt. 16.12.2025 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. No oral arguments were furnished by either side. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his written arguments has stated that all the requirements of section 138 NI act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case and he has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, all the ingredients of section 138 of NI act have been duly satisfied and presumption under section 139 of NI act is drawn in favour of the complainant. It is further stated that as it is the accused who asserts that the cheque in question was not given to the complainant but to some other person as a blank signed security, the burden is upon him to prove this fact. It is also averred that the version of the accused that the loan of only Rs. 30,000/- was taken from a third person is not supported by any evidence and the fact that no complaint was made to any authority with respect to the alleged beating of the accused further gives strength to the version of the complainant and indicates a false and fabricated story created by the accused. He further stated that in the absence of any witness or any reliable documentary evidence brought forth by the accused, his bald assertion is not sufficient enough to rebut the mandatory presumption that exists in favour of the complainant. It was also stated that contradictory stands have been taken by the accused at different stages and he has failed to raise any probable defence thereby rebutting the presumption under section Digitally 139 NI act. The counsel for the complainant has concluded by signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2026.04.13 15:48:22 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 6 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD stating that the accused should be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 NI act.
9. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused in his written submissions has stated that the offence under section 138 NI act is not made out as the present complaint is based on false and fabricated facts and the accused does not owe any liability towards the complainant. It was further stated that the entire loan amount that was taken by the accused was taken from one person namely Kamal and the cheque in question was handed over as a blank signed security check to him. It was also stated that the accused never had any dealing with the complainant and thus no legally enforceable debt/liability towards the complainant . It was further stated that the accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under section 139 NI act and the accused has raised a probable defence in her favour. Therefore, accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 NI act.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments submitted on behalf of the parties. Additionally, I have meticulously reviewed the entire case record.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
11. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section NISHTHA MEHTANI 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:48:38 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 7 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
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 of the NI Act
12. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2026.04.13 15:48:51 +0530 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 8 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD PROVING OF INGREDIENTS
13. Notably, there is no dispute qua the proof of first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex.CW1/2 which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo Ex. CW1/3 which has also not been disputed. With regard to the proving of fourth ingredient i.e. the service of legal demand notice, the accused has denied the receipt of the same in the notice framed U/s. 251 Cr.P.C as well as in the statement recorded u/s 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. That it is a trite law that in order to maintain a complaint u/s-138 NI Act, serving of legal demand notice to the Accused before filing the case is imperative. As regards the service of legal demand notice, the Complainant has dispatched the same, Ex. CW1/4 to the Accused. Original postal receipt (Ex. CW1/5) and tracking report (Mark A) corroborate this.
14. That Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, support the presumption of effective service when a document is sent by registered post unless proven otherwise. The denial of receiving the legal demand notice by the Accused does not invalidate its service, especially when he has admitted the address on the same to be his correct address at the time of the framing of the notice Digitally u/s 251 Cr.P.C. The precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI in C.C.Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed [2007 (6) SCC 555] MEHTANI Date:
2026.04.13 15:49:03 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 9 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD reinforces this finding; wherein it has been categorically held that a person who does not pay the amount of cheque within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with a copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section
138. Consequently, the Accused has not successfully rebutted the presumption of service of the legal demand notice. Resultantly, the fourth ingredient stands fulfilled as against the Accused. The fifth ingredient as such the same is deemed to be proved that no payment has been made after issuance of legal demand notice.
RAISING OF PRESUMPTION
15. The accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque in question in the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as the statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C.
16. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act laying down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
17. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and NISHTHA given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability.
MEHTANI Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Date: 2026.04.13 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 10 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD 15:49:17 +0530 imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16, Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197.
18. Therefore, in the instant case, since the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE QUA SECOND INGREDIENT (EXISTENCE OF LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT/LIABILITY)
19. The presumptions contemplated in the NI Act are rebuttable presumptions and once the same are raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"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 probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of Digitally signed by preponderance of probabilities. NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:49:30 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 11 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD 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."
20. In the instant case, the complainant seeks to enforce liability upon the accused on the ground of having granted a friendly loan of Rs.95000/- , the cheque in question being issued by the accused in discharge of the said liability in favour of the complainant. Since a presumption as envisaged u/s 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted in favour of the Complainant as such, it is now incumbent upon the accused to rebut the said presumption on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
21. The accused has taken a defence that he didn't know the complainant and never took a loan from him. He stated that he look a loan of Rs.30,000/- from one person namely Kamal on interest and handed over the cheque in question as a blank signed cheque along with blank signed pronote to him which has been misused by the complainant. He also took the plea that he had paid 5-6 installments to Kamal and that he did not owe any debt /liability towards the complainant at time of the presentation of the cheque in question.
22. For corroborating the complaint, consistent Digitally testimony regarding the key elements of the transaction with the signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
accused is essential to be provided by CW-1 (the complainant) 2026.04.13 15:49:47 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 12 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD and in the instant case, nothing could be elicited from the complainant during his cross examination that put significantly undermine the reliability of the complainant or impeach the credibility of his deposition.
23. The accused in the present case has not disputed the fact of taking a loan, however he has alleged that he never knew the complainant and a loan of only Rs 30,000/- was taken by him from one person namely Kamal to whom the cheque in question was handed over as a blank signed security cheque along with a blank signed pronote which has been misused by the complainant. However, except oral testimony of the accused in this regard, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said defence of the accused. During his examination in chief held on 16.12.2025, the accused stated that one card for giving daily installments of Rs.380/- was made , however the same was never produced by the accused to substantiate his averments. No Loan agreement, repayment receipts, Bank account statement or witness in whose presence the alleged repayment was done to the said Kamal has been brought in evidence by the accused in order to establish his defence. Despite opportunity being granted to cross examine the complainant, the accused also failed to conduct the same.
24. Moreover, contradictory stands have been taken by the accused qua the handing over of the the cheque in question and the pronote. At the time of the framing of the notice under NISHTHA section 251 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that he had given the MEHTANI cheque in question signed and in blank to one person namely Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Date: 2026.04.13 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 13 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD 15:50:00 +0530 Kamal from whom he had borrowed Rs.30,000/- on interest whereas later, in his examination in chief held on 16.12.2025, the accused stated that he had given the cheque in question to one lady named Lata Kumari who had married him. Also at the time of the framing of the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that Kamal had obtained his signatures on a blank pronote whereas he took a contradictory stand during his cross- examination and stated that he was taken by 2 persons on bike to Dayalpur, where they beat him and threatened him to sign 3-4 blank pages . The relevant portion of the cross examination of the accused is as follows:-
" It is wrong to suggest that I had signed a pronote at the time of handing over the cheque in question to Lata. Vol: When I was taken by 2 persons on bike to Dayalpur they beat and threatened me to sign 3-4 blank pages. After I got beaten up I got medically examined however I do not have the documents for the same and the same are with Lata only. I did not sign any other pronote."
Absolutely no mention of any such incident was made by the accused at the time of framing of his notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. and even if the version of the accused with respect to the alleged beating and assault is believed, non filing of any police complaint with respect to the same creates doubt to lurk around his story. Moreover, when questioned by the counsel for the complainant about the date and time as to when the accused was in the requirement of money for opening the halwai shop as averred by him, the accused was unable to answer the same.
Digitally signed by
25. Furthermore, no communication in the form of any NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
letter/ notice sent to the complainant/Kamal has been brought on 2026.04.13 15:50:14 +0530 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 14 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD record by the accused which could substantiate his averment that he took steps for the return of his cheque which had allegedly been misused. No complaint was made by the accused to the bank or public authorities regarding the alleged misuse of his cheque. Non issuance of stop payment instructions to the bank also makes the story of the accused unreliable. He thus failed to adduce any credible evidence to show that he indeed did everything within his power and control as a reasonable and prudent person would, to ensure that the cheque tendered by him was not misused. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V. S. Yadav versus Reena (2010) 172 DLT 561.
26. In the absence of any cogent evidence, to show that no loan was taken from the complainant and a loan of only Rs.30,000/- was taken from Kamal, part of which was repaid by the accused, and that there was no legal enforceable debt or liability of the accused at the time of the presentation of the cheque, no reliance can be put on the statement of the accused. Hence it can be said that mere allegations of the accused are insufficient in the absence of concrete evidence to support his claims and significantly weakened his line of defence. Thus the defence that there was no legally enforceable debt /liability of the accused towards the complainant is hereby rejected.
27. Now coming to the second defence taken by the accused that the cheque in question was given as a blank signed NISHTHA MEHTANI security cheque to Kamal. No evidence has been brought on Digitally signed by record by the accused to show that the cheque in question was NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:50:29 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 15 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD only given for the purpose of security. Even if it is presumed that the cheque was given as a security, the same does not help the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed by this court on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, Sripati Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002 and Sunil Todi Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC1174 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely because a cheque has been given for security purposes does not mean that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant, however, it does mean that the court has to see whether there exists legally enforceable debt or liability as on the date mentioned on the cheque or whether a legally enforceable debt or liability has arisen at the time of presentation of the cheque. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the accused would very much be liable under Section138 NI Act for issuance of a security cheque as well, if on the date of the presentation of such cheque there has not been a prior discharge of debt, or if the cheque has not been given towards advance payment, the goods in respect of which have not been received, or if there has been change in circumstances which precludes the complainant from depositing the cheque with the bank.
28. Thus, the legal position that emerges is that simply pleading the cheque in question to have been given as security cheque shall not in itself be sufficient to discharge the burden NISHTHA caste upon the accused by law. The accused must also further MEHTANI establish that there was no liability of the accused on the date Digitally signed by NISHTHA MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) 15:50:47 +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 16 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD when the cheque was presented for encashment. Mere denial is not sufficient once execution of the cheque has been admitted. Sections-20, 87 and 139 of NI Act when read in harmony, makes it clear that the drawer of the cheque is liable to pay unless the presumption has been rebutted by raising a probable defence and it would make no difference if the particulars of the cheques in question is filled by someone else if the cheques have been duly signed by the Accused. Sec-138 NI Act would be attracted if the cheques are otherwise valid cheques.
29. Accused has not been able to prove for the reasons discussed above that he did not owe the liability as on the cheque in question on the day when the same was presented. Mere denial of the case of the Complainant with oral averments, supported by no documents or evidence, leave alone, cogent one is not going to assume any evidentiary value and averments in notice of accusation and in his examination under Sec-313 Cr.P.C read with Sec-281 Cr.P.C would not assume the character of defence evidence1 as mere denial is not sufficient.
30. In view of the above discussion, the evidence presented on behalf of the Complainant gains credibility and instils confidence in the Court regarding the material aspects of the Complaint. The narrative of the Complainant remains consistent and coherent supported by documentary evidence in stark contrast to the version provided by the Accused.
Digitally signed by NISHTHA 1 V.S Yadav v. Reena, CRL. A. No. 1136 Of 2010. NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2026.04.13 15:51:04 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) +0530 Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 17 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD
31. The Accused's admission of his signature on the cheque is pivotal, and when combined with the presumption raised under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, all the necessary elements of Section 138 of the same Act have been adequately established by the case of the Complainant. The defence of the accused was primarily based on the assertion that the liability as on the cheque in question did not exist as on the date when the cheque in question was presented, arguing that no loan was borrowed from the complainant and only Rs.30,000/- was borrowed from Kamal some part pf which was also repaid. However, the Accused has failed to meet the burden of proof, failing to provide convincing evidence that tilts the balance of probabilities in his favour. Consequently, the presumption raised against the Accused remains unchallenged and stands firm.
32. The culmination of the above analysis leads to the conclusion that all the essential elements required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are satisfactorily met with respect to the Accused. The case of the Complainant stands on a firm foundation, while the defence of the Accused is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks persuasive evidence, failing to create any reasonable doubt in the version put forth by the Complainant. The evidence led by the Complainant emerges as more credible and consistent, leading to the conclusion that all the legal requirements are met, and the defence of the Accused lacks substantiation. Digitally signed by NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date:
2026.04.13 15:51:19 +0530 CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 18 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD FINAL ORDER
33. In view of the aforesaid, accused Darshan Saini is held guilty and is convicted of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
34. This judgment contains 19 signed pages.
35. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost as per rules.
36. Convict be now heard on the quantum of sentence.Digitally signed by
NISHTHA NISHTHA MEHTANI MEHTANI Date: 2026.04.13 15:47:54 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NISHTHA MEHTANI) on 13.04.2026 JMFC(NI Act),North East, Kkd Courts, New Delhi CC NO. 121/2021 (Nishtha Mehtani) Girish Joshi vs Darshan Saini page 19 JMFC(NI Act)/NE/KKD