Delhi District Court
Sangrakshita vs Mahesh Aggarwal on 19 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV UJJWAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS/NI ACT-01/WEST/TIS
HAZARI COURT/DELHI
C.T. Cases no. 24260/2016
CNR No. DLWT020167272016
Smt. Sangrakshita,
W/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
R/o H.no. D-80, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, New Delhi-110041 .........Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Mahesh Aggarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chandar Aggarwal,
R/o SF-36, GH-5 & 7, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063 ............Accused
::J U D G M E N T::
Date of institution of case : 29.11.2016
Date of reserving the judgment : 07.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.03.2026
Offence complained or proved : 138 N.I. Act
Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty"
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 1/17
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
UJJWAL
UJJWAL Date: 2026.03.19
16:30:46 +0530
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of Final Order : 19.03.2026
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has arisen out of a complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) by one Smt. Sangrakshita (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant') for dishonor of one cheque bearing number 131676 dt. 01.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, DAV School, RBI Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi branch, (hereinafter referred to as 'the cheque in question') issued by one Sh. Mahesh Aggarwal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') in favor of the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and accused were having good friendly relationship with each other as they were neighbors. It is the case of complainant that accused approached her for a friendly loan of Rs.7,50,000/- for purchasing a van/vehicle(maxi) for purpose of carrying students to their respective schools/college in the local area and assured to pay back same without any interest within six months. It is further alleged that complainant collected the said amount from her relatives, out of which she paid Rs.3,00,000/- from her pocket; she advanced Rs.7,50,000/- to accused on 04.10.2015, in discharge of which accused issued post-dated cheque i.e. cheque in question, (cheque bearing number 131676 dt. 01.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, drawn on Oriental Bank of Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 2/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV UJJWAL GAURAV Date:
UJJWAL 2026.03.19 16:30:50 +0530 Commerce, DAV School, RBI Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi branch,). It is further alleged that thereafter when after gap of six months, relatives of complainant demanded the money back, she asked the accused to repay and the accused advised to present the aforementioned cheque for encashment. However, when the aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment, same again got dishonored vide return memo dt. 05.10.2016 with the same remarks "funds insufficient". Thereafter complainant informed about the same to accused, however he refused to pay the amount. Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal demand notice dated 08.10.2016 under section 138(b) NI Act. The present complaint came to be filed by the complainant when the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque despite receipt of the legal demand notice.
3. The court, on finding a prima facie case against the accused, issued process against him and summoned him before the court on 07.12.2016.
COMPLAINANT`S EVIDENCE
4. The complainant thereafter examined herself on 07.12.2016 and tendered her evidence on affidavit which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/A. She also placed reliance on the following documents: -
(a) Ex. CW1/1 is the cheque in question.
(b) Ex. CW2 is the return memo dt. 05.10.2016.
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 3/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:30:53 +0530
(c) Ex. CW1/3 is the legal demand notice dt. 08.10.2016.
(d) Ex. CW-1/4 is the postal receipt dt. 08.10.2016.
(e) Ex. CW1/5 is the returned envelope of legal notice.
PLEA OF DEFENCE
5. The defense of the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. was recorded, after serving upon him the substance of accusation on 09.10.2019 wherein the accused, while pleading not guilty, explained his defence by stating that he does not know the complainant. He further stated that he had no financial dealings with the complainant. He further stated that cheque in question was kept at his Kiryana Store in Pas Vihar as a blank signed cheque and same was lost from there and he had lodged a police complaint in that regard. He admitted his signature on the cheque in question however denied filling up the particulars on the same. He further denied receiving legal demand notice, however stated that same bears his previous correct address. He further stated that he had no liability towards the complainant.
6. This court had allowed the application u/s.145(2) NI Act filed by the accused to cross-examine the complainant on 07.01.2021. The complainant thereafter was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, which shall be discussed later in the judgment.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. The Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.09.2022 wherein he stated that he had never handed over the cheque in Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 4/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:30:56 +0530 question to complainant at any point in discharge of any liability and that he has no liability towards the complainant. He further stated that he has never taken any loan from the complainant at any point of time. He further denied receiving legal demand notice and further stated that address mentioned in the notice as well as in the envelope Ex.CW1/5 does not belong to him. He further stated that complainant has misused the cheque in order to gain wrongfully as she was known to his wife and had visiting terms with her. He further stated that his cheque book of Oriental Bank of Commerce was lost alongwith PAN Card and he had lodged the missing complaint vide LR No.957551/2016 dt. 07.10.2016 at PS Crime Branch, Delhi. He admitted his signatures on the cheque, however denied filling up other particulars on the same. He further stated that as he used to visit outside Delhi so he used to put signatures on the cheque in order to meet his day to day expenses and cheque in question is one of the cheque of the cheque book which was lost and it might have been stolen by complainant during her visit to house and complainant has filed a false case and he has no legal liability towards the complainant.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. The accused examined himself as DW-1 under section 315 Cr.P.C on
16.09.2023 wherein he relied upon the lost complaint no. 957551/2016 dt. 07.10.2016 regarding the missing cheque book and PAN Card Ex.CW1/D1 and he was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for the complainant. Accused examined one ASI Harish Kumar as DW-2, who brough same lost report no. 957551/2016 dt. 07.10.2016 alongwith certificate u/s.65B Indian Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 5/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:31:00 +0530 Evidence Act, the record was exhibited as Ex.DW2/1, and also Sh. Deepak Jain, handwriting and fingerprint expert was examined as DW-2 and his report dt. 26.01.2025 was then exhibited as Ex.DW2/A, DW-2 were not examined, however opportunity was granted to Ld. counsel for the complainant. Subsequently, the case was put up for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Sh. L.S. Rana, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. The complainant has been able to prove all the pre-requisites of Section 138 NI Act against the accused and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
10. Per contra, Sh. U.M. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that no money was ever advanced to the accused as alleged by the complainant, there are no evidence or witness of such advancement and the complainant is not even having the financial capacity to advance such amount. Therefore, the accused is to be acquitted.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
11. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first. It is well settled Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 6/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL Date: UJJWAL 2026.03.19 16:31:03 +0530 position of law that to constitute an offence under S.138 N.I. Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) That the cheque in question has been drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability.
(ii) That the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (now three months) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
(iii) That the cheque was returned dishonoured by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds or the same exceeded any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque.
(iv) That the complainant gave 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 demanding payment of the cheque amount.
(v) Lastly that the accused failed to make payment to the payee (the complainant), or the holder in due course, the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
12. It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be said to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 7/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.03.19 16:31:06 +0530
13. There is no dispute with regard to ingredient no. (ii) and (iii) as the accused has not questioned the same. Further presumption in favour of complainant has to be drawn in terms of Sec-146 NI Act. Ingredient no. (v) is also satisfied as the accused has denied having any outstanding liability towards complainant, therefore question of payment after receipt of legal demand notice by the accused does not arise.
14. Accused has denied the receipt of legal demand notice in his statement u/s- 251 Cr.pc however stated that same bears his previous correct address. The burden to prove that he had not received the legal notice was on the accused. Section 103 I.E.A. lays down the rule that the burden of proving a particular fact is on the person who asserts that fact. Since the accused admitted that the address on the legal notice was correct, there was limited scope for him to prove that the legal notice was not served upon him. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act establishes a presumption of service with respect to letters or documents sent through post and states: "... the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying, and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. " There has been no dispute regarding the complainant sending the legal demand notice to the accused via prepaid registered post. The accused has also acknowledged that his address on the legal demand notice was correct. Therefore, the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies in this case, and it can be assumed that the legal demand notice was served upon the accused in the ordinary course of business.
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 8/17 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.03.19 16:31:10 +0530
15. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammad & Anr AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 1705" held that:
"17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.", thus, ingredient no. (iv) is also satisfied POINTS OF DETERMINATION (A). Whether the complainant has successfully proven the facts which would raise the presumption u/s. 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act by proving that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused?
(B). If yes, whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence or in another words, whether he had been able to prove that the Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 9/17 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.03.19 16:31:13 +0530 cheques were not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or any other liability?
REASONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT
16. It is settled law that once the signature upon the cheques in question has been admitted by the accused, 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, which lays 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 given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it 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 in 'Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16'.
18. In the present case, the accused at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 and statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. Once signatures are admitted, the presumption under Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 10/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:31:17 +0530 section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act has to be raised in favour of the complainant in the present case.
19. Accordingly, the point of determination number A is decided in the affirmative.
Points of determination number (B):
20. Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983', noted at para 23:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or 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.
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 11/17
Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
GAURAV UJJWAL
UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19
16:31:20
+0530
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
21. Let us discuss the factual matrix of the present case. The accused in his plea of defence recorded on 09.10.2019 stated that he does not know the complainant and he had no financial dealings with the complainant. He further stated that cheque in question was kept at his Kiryana Store in Pas Vihar as a blank signed cheque, same was lost from there and he had lodged a police complaint in that regard. He also stated that he had no liability towards the complainant. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 15.09.2022 he stated that he had never handed over the cheque in question to complainant at any point in discharge of any liability and that he has no liability towards the complainant. He further stated that he has never taken any loan from the complainant at any point of time and the complainant has misused the cheque in order to gain wrongfully as she was known to his wife and had visiting terms with her. He also states that his cheque book of Oriental Bank of Commerce was lost alongwith PAN Card and he had lodged the missing complaint vide LR No.957551/2016 dt. 07.10.2016 at PS Crime Branch, Delhi. He further stated that as he used to visit outside Delhi so he used to put signatures on the cheque in order to meet his day to day expenses and cheque in question is one of the cheque of the cheque book which was lost and it might have been stolen by complainant during her visit Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 12/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:31:24 +0530 to house and complainant has filed a false case and he has no legal liability towards the complainant.
22. Accused examined himself as DW-1 on 16.09.2023 wherein he reiterated his defence that he has never taken any loan from the complainant and has never issued the cheque in question to him, same has been misused by him. Rather the cheque in question belongs to his cheque book which was lost and to prove the said fact he relied upon lost complaint no. 957551/2016 dt. 07.10.2016 regarding the missing cheque book and PAN Card Ex.CW1/D1. ASI Harish Kumar examined as DW-2 dt. 26.03.2024, also brough same lost report no.957551 dt. 07.10.2016 alongwith certificate u/s.65B Indian Evidence Act, the record was exhibited as Ex.DW2/1. During his cross-examination accused has admitted that he has not lodged any FIR against the complainant till date regarding the said misuse of cheque and that the lost complaint Ex.CW1/D1/ Ex.DW2/1 does not mention the cheque number of cheque in question.
23. Accused further states that he has not filled in the particulars on the cheque in question and in order to prove the same has also examined Sh.
Deepak Jain, handwriting and fingerprint expert as DW-2 dt.11.03.2025. DW-2 has given his report dt. 26.01.2025 Ex.DW2/A after comparing the disputed handwriting on cheque in question with specimen handwriting of accused taken before the court and has opined that the particulars on the cheque are not in the handwriting of accused. DW-2 was not cross- examined, however opportunity was granted to Ld. counsel for the Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 13/17 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.03.19 16:31:28 +0530 complainant. The testimony of the defence witness cannot be seen with a tint of doubt or cannot be discredited only because it is for the person accused of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 'State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh [2002 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 443]' while acquitting the accused held, "that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of prosecution witnesses, the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of prosecution".
24. Complainant Smt. Sangrakshita in her evidence affidavit Ex-CW1/A has stated that a friendly loan of Rs.7,50,000/- was advanced to the accused on 04.10.2015 by her, out of which she paid Rs.3,00,000/- from her own pocket and remaining amount was collected from friends & relatives. During her cross-examination as CW-1, she has admitted that the names of such friends & relatives have not been mentioned either in the complaint or evidence affidavit Ex-CW1/A and even at this stage she cannot tell their names. She has also stated that loan was given by her to the accused in the presence of her entire family, but has admitted that the presence of family members at the time of advancement was not mentioned in the complaint as well as in evidence affidavit Ex-CW1/A, nor such witnesses has been examined by the complainant in present matter. She has further stated that an endorsement regarding making of payment to accused has been made by her in a register/diary, which is in her possession. But no such register/diary could be produced by her despite being asked to produce the same. This court is conscious of the presumption against the accused and in favour of the complainant, but reasonable doubt regarding the factum of abovesaid Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 14/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:31:33 +0530 advancement by the complainant arise based on the testimony of CW-1, as there is no evidence or witness to such advancement which has been brought on record .
25. Accused has also challenged the financial capacity of the complainant to advance Rs.7,50,000/-. During final arguments Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has failed to prove her financial capacity to advance the amount as alleged by her. The burden to prove the same was on the accused. The Hon`ble Apex court in Rajaram (deceased) Through LRs Vs. Maruthachalam (deceased) Through LRs (2023) 16 SCC 125 has held that presumption u/s 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by the accused examining the Income Tax Officer and bank official of the complainant/drawee. No such witness could be examined by the accused in present matter, as the complainant in her cross-examination has stated that she is not an income tax assessee and do not even deposit her savings in bank account. Complainant in her evidence affidavit Ex-CW1/A states that she has paid Rs.3,00,000/- from her own pocket. In her cross-examination she has stated that in the year 2015, she was earning Rs.7,000/-to Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, the advancement does not appear probable from such meagre income, further, the complainant has failed to disclose the details of her friends & relatives from whom the remaining amount was allegedly collected. It is not the case of the complainant that she has also taken money from her husband and son who are also earning allegedly.
26. As per the above discussion, it is most important to note that the standard of proof required from the accused for rebutting any presumption is Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 15/17 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.03.19 16:31:37 +0530 not as high as that required from the prosecution. So long as the accused can make his version reasonably probable, the burden of rebutting the presumption would stand discharged. The accused has successfully raised probable defence by highlighting contradictions in the cross-examination of complainant when compared with the complaint and also by reference to the circumstances upon which the parties rely. Particularly, by refering to the fianancial capacity of complainant to advance huge sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in cash and complainant giving evasive answers with regard to her source of such amount. Further, accused has also created doubt with regard to the fact that whether the cheque in question was duly filled at the time of its handing over as alleged by the complainant, by examining the handwriting expert.
27. Accordingly, the point of determination number B is decided in the affirmative.
28. The complainant has failed to proved its case, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, without taking the aid of presumption under section 139 NI Act, as in the first place the story of the complainant that she advanced a loan to the respondent-accused is unsupported by any material leave alone any documentary evidence that any such loan transaction had ever taken place. Further, no material has been placed on record to show that the cheque in question were issued for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-.
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 16/17 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.03.19 16:31:43 +0530 CONCLUSION
29. Accordingly, this Court finds the accused Sh. Mahesh Aggarwal, S/o Late Sh. Ram Chandar Aggarwal, not guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence.
27. This judgement contains 17 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned as per rules. Let the copy of digitally signed judgment be uploaded on the website of Tis Hazari District Court as per rules.
Digitally signed by GAURAV UJJWAL GAURAV Date:
UJJWAL 2026.03.19
16:31:47
Announced in open Court +0530
on 19th Day of March, 2026
GAURAV UJJWAL
JMFC (NI ACT-01)
WEST/THC
Ct. Cases No. 24260/2016 Sangrakshita Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal Pg. no. 17/17