Delhi District Court
Narain Timber Products vs S.Amarpal Singh Chandoke on 9 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV UJJWAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS/NI ACT-01/WEST/TIS
HAZARI COURT/DELHI
C.T. Cases no. 5962/2016
CNR No. DLWT020022882014
M/s. Narain Timber Product,
through its proprietor
Sh. R.K. Dawar,
Having Office at 1/4,
Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar
New Delhi-110015 .........Complainant
Vs.
Sh. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke,
being proprietor of M/s. S.K. Electronics
R/o H.No.13, Sant Nagar Extension,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 ........Accused
::J U D G M E N T::
Date of institution of case : 02.06.2014
Date of reserving the judgment : 28.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.02.2026
Offence complained or proved : 138 N.I. Act
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 1/16 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.02.09 15:01:30 +0530 Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty"
Final Order : Conviction
Date of Final Order : 09.02.2026
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has arisen out of a complaint filed under section 138 r/w Section 141 and Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) by M/s. Narain Timber Products, through its proprietor of Sh. R.K. Dawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant') for dishonor of seven cheques i.e. cheque bearing number 000090 dt. 14.03.2014, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000091 dt. 19.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000092 dt. 22.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000093 dt. 26.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000094 dt. 29.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000095 dt. 03.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.46,775/- and cheque bearing number 000075 dt. 15.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.75,000/-, all drawn on HDFC Bank, Meera Bagh, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 Branch, (hereinafter referred to as 'the cheques in question') issued by one Sh. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke, being the proprietor of M/s. S.K. Electronics (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') in favor of the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused has business transaction Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 2/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV UJJWAL GAURAV Date:
UJJWAL 2026.02.09
15:01:35
+0530
with the complainant and had purchased MDF plywood. It is further the case of complainant that accused used to make payments after purchasing the materials from the complainant against the bills for purchased materials. It is further alleged by the complainant that accused purchased MDF plywood on 11.12.2013, 18.12.2013 and 23.12.2013 against which complainant raised the bills for the purchased amount, labour charge and taxes applicable as per law. It is further alleged that the bill dt. 11.12.2013 was for Rs.1,58,250, bill dt. 18.12.2013 was for Rs.98,550/- and bill dt. 23.12.2013 was for Rs.1,14,275/-, totaling to Rs.3,71,775/-, qua which accused issued post dated cheques i.e. cheque bearing no.000035 for Rs.98,550/- against bill no.3119, cheque bearing no.000029 for Rs.83,250 and cheque no.000027 for Rs.75,000/- against bill no.3113 and cheque bearing no.000040 for Rs.1,14,975/- against bill no.3126, all the cheques got dishonored. Thereafter, complainant informed about the said dishonour to the accused to which he requested complainant to present them again with assurance that same shall be encashed, however upon presentation, all aforesaid cheques again got dishonoured and complainant immediately informed accused about the same. Thereafter, accused apologized and replaced the cheques with the cheques in question (i.e. seven cheques bearing number 000090 dt. 14.03.2014, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000091 dt. 19.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000092 dt. 22.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000093 dt. 26.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000094 dt. 29.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing number 000095 dt. 03.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.46,775/- and cheque bearing number 000075 dt. 15.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.75,000/-, all drawn on HDFC Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 3/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:01:39 +0530 Bank, Meera Bagh, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 Branch) against the aforesaid discharge of legal liablity of the bills and also assured that same would be encashed upon presentation however the cheques in question also got dishonored all with remarks "funds insufficient" vide return memos dt. 08.04.2014. Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal demand notice dated 14.04.2014 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 cheques 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 16.07.2014.
COMPLAINANT`S EVIDENCE
4. The complainant Sh. R.K. Dawar examined himself as CW-1 on 16.07.2014 and tendered his evidence on affidavit which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/A. He also placed reliance on the following documents: -
(a) Ex. CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/3 are the original bills dt, 18.12.2013, 11.12.2013 and 23.12.2013 raised by complainant.
(b) Ex. CW1/4 to Ex.CW1/10 are the deposit slip of cheques in question.
(c) Ex. CW1/11 to Ex.CW1/17 are the cheques in question.
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 4/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:01:42 +0530
(d) Ex. CW1/18 and Ex.CW1/24 are the return memos, all dt. 08.04.2014.
(e) Ex. CW1/25 is the certified statement of account of Syndicate Bank of complainant.
(f) Ex. CW1/26 is the legal demand notice dt. 14.04.2014.
(g) Ex. CW-1/27 is the postal receipt dt. 15.04.2014.
(h) Ex. CW1/28 is the courier receipt dt. 15.04.2014.
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 01.08.2016 wherein the accused, while pleading not guilty, explained his defence by stating that he had no legal liability towards the complainant as he had issued the cheques in question for security purpose and complainant had misused the cheques in question. He admitted the signatures on the cheques in question but denied filling up other particulars. He denied receiving the legal demand notice but admitted that the address mentioned on the legal notice is his correct address.
6. This court had allowed the application u/s.145(2) NI Act made by the accused to cross-examine the complainant on 17.03.2017. Thereafter, right of accused to cross examine the complainant was closed on 29.08.2019/29.10.2024 as despite multiple opportunities accused did not Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 5/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:01:45 +0530 cross-examine the accused. Thereafter, accused did not appear before the Court and process u/s.82 CrPC was issued, which was cancelled vide order dt. 28.02.2024 and mater was put up for recording statement of accused u/s.313 CrPC. Thereafter, accused filed application u/s.311 CrPC, which was allowed on 27.11.2024 and thereafter complainant's evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A was read as his examination in chief as per Section 145(1) NI Act and he was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, which shall be discussed late in his judgment.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. The Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.01.2025 wherein he admitted purchasing the goods on 11.12.2013, 18.12.2013 and 23.12.2013, however he stated that goods were returned as goods were sub-standard. He further stated that complainant might have raised the bills Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/3, however goods were returned to complainant as the same were wet. He further stated that complainant used to take around 8-10 advance cheques for 2 months which he had given to complainant after signing the same, no other particulars were filled by him.
He denied receiving legal demand notice, however admitted that address mentioned therein was correct, but he had left the said address in the year 2013-2014. He further stated that he had no liability towards the complainant as good were returned as same were sub-standard. He further stated that since dispute arose due to supply to sub-standard goods, the complainant misused his advance cheques by filling the amount in them. He further stated that he had not issued cheques in question to complainant Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 6/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.02.09 15:01:48 +0530 against the invoices filed by him.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. Thereafter, accused filed application under section 315 Cr.P.C which was allowed on 01.03.2025, however accused did not examine himself despite multiple opportunities given to him and on 09.06.2025, right of accused to lead DE was closed. Thereafter, accused filed application u/s.311 CrPC on 13.08.2025, which was dismissed on the even date and final arguments were heard and subsequently, case was put up for judgment.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Sh. Pranav Kishore Jha, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that 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. He further submits that accused has not lead any evidence to prove the fact that the goods delivered to him by the complainant were sub-standard and were returned, as alleged by him. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
10. Per contra, Ms. Sunita Narayan, Ld. Counsel for the accused has not argued orally, rather has relied upon written submission placed on record, as Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 7/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV UJJWAL GAURAV Date:
UJJWAL 2026.02.09
15:01:52
+0530
per which the accused argues that he had returned the goods to the complainant. Ld. Counsel further states that there are several contradictions in the contents of complaint and the statement of complainant recorded during his cross-examination. Accordingly, complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused should be acquitted in present case.
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 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.
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 8/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:01:57 +0530
(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.
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 reciept of legal demand notice by the accused does not arise.
14. Accused has denied the reciept of legal demand notice (Ex CW1/26) in his statement u/s- 251 Cr.pc. dt. 01.08.2016, but has admitted that same bears his correct address. Since the accused admitted that the address on the legal notice was correct, there was limited scope for him to prove that the Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 9/16 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date: 2026.02.09 15:02:00 +0530 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, accordingly ingredient no. (iv) is 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). Whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence or in another words, whether he had been able to prove that the cheques were not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or any other liability?
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 10/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:02:04 +0530 REASONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT
15. 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.
16. 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'.
17. In the present case, the accused at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 dt. 01.08.2016 and statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C dt. 18.01.2025 has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. Once signatures are admitted, the presumption under section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act has to be raised in favour of the complainant in the present case.
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Digitally Pg. no.signed 11/16 by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL Date:
UJJWAL 2026.02.09 15:02:07 +0530
18. Accordingly, the point of determination number A is decided in the affirmative.
Points of determination number (B):
19. 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.
(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 Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 12/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:02:11 +0530 burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
20. Let us discuss the factual matrix of the present case. The accused has failed to lead defence evidence in present matter despite opportunity being given. The accused in his plea of defence under section 251 Cr.P.C. recorded on 01.08.2016 stated that he had no legal liability towards the complainant as he had issued the cheques in question for security purpose and complainant had misused the cheques in question. Whereas, in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 18.01.2025 accused had admitted purchasing goods from the complainant on 11.12.2013, 18.12.2013 and 23.12.2013, however he stated that goods were returned as goods were sub-standard. He further stated that complainant might have raised the bills Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/3, however goods were returned to complainant as the same were wet. There are contadictions between the two statements , further, no such fact regarding the goods being returned to the complainant was stated by the accused in his plea of defence.
21. Accused u/s 313 Cr.pc., further stated that complainant used to take around 8-10 advance cheques for 2 months which he had given to complainant after signing the same, no other particulars were filled by him. During his cross-examination dt. 21.12.2024 as CW-1, the complainant has denied the suggestion that accused used to give blank signed cheques to him.
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 13/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:02:15 +0530
22. Accused u/s 313 Cr.pc., has admitted that he had purchased goods from complainant, but further states that he had no liability towards the complainant as goods were returned as same were sub-standard. During his cross-examination as CW-1, the complainant has denied the suggestion that accused has returned the goods. The accused has failed to prove such fact, as he has not provided any details regarding the said return, nor has placed any evidence on record to prove the same.
23. He further stated that since dispute arose due to supply of sub- standard goods, the complainant misused his advance cheques by filling the amount in them. But has not placed on record any complaint made by him against the complainant for such misuse. Thus, statements not supported by evidence does make a good defence.
24. The accused has put in suggestion to the complainant during his cross- examination dt. 21.12.2024 as CW-1, that the cheques in question were issued as security cheques, same has been denied by the complainant. Further, in the case of 'Sripati Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand 2021 AIR(SC) 5632' The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 14/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:02:19 +0530 payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow. " It is an established law that prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act is valid if, on the date the security cheques are presented, the amount specified in the cheques matches the liability accrued against the drawer on that date.
25. Based on the abovesaid discussion it can be finally said that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 NI Act by raising probable defence either by highlighting material contadictions in complainants case, leading defence evidence or by refering to the circumstances.
26. It is trite law that when the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 NI Act, the court can proceed to convict the accused. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court in 'Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148', which discusses the correct approach in dealing with presumption under Section 139 observed as under; relevant extracts are reproduced hereunder:
"54. ...Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 15/16 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV UJJWAL UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09 15:02:23 +0530 activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138...."
CONCLUSION
27. Accordingly, this Court finds the accused Sh. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke, S/o Sh. Amar Singh, guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act and accordingly he is convicted of the said offence.
28. This judgement contains 16 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
GAURAV UJJWAL
UJJWAL Date:
2026.02.09
Announced in open Court 15:02:29
+0530
on 09th Day of February, 2026
GAURAV UJJWAL
JMFC (NI ACT-01)
WEST/THC
Ct. Cases No.5962/2016 M/s. Narain Timber Products VS. S. Amarpal Singh Chandoke Pg. no. 16/16