Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Reena Jha vs The State on 21 May, 2026

        IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-08,
         WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


                                Presided by: Nipun Awasthi, DHJS
                                  CNR No. DLWT01- 008095-2025
                                              CA No. 280/2025


In the matter of :


1.       Reena Jha
         S/o Sh. Subhash Jha
         R/p A-11, Bhagya Vihar,
         Madanpur Dabas near Rani Khera
         Village, Delhi - 110081
                                                  ...... Appellant

                  Versus

1.       The State

2.       Sanjay Singh (since deceased)
         Through its LRs Mohit Singh
         S/o late Sh. Sanjay Singh




Crl. Appeal No. 280/2025      Reena Jha Vs The State & Anr       Page 1 of 5
                &
         Surekha Devi
         W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Singh
         R/o B-60, Shiv Park Nangloi,
         New Delhi - 110041
                                                     ..... Respondents



                  Date of institution of appeal               : 18.08.2025
                  Date of reserving for order                 : 17.04.2026
                  Date of pronouncement of order              : 21.05.2026



                                 O R D E R

1. The present appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C./ u/s 415 of BNSS challenges the judgment dated 28.02.2025 (impugned judgment) and order on sentence dated 02.07.2025 of the Ld. JMFC (NI Act-01), West, THC pronounced in a complaint case u/sec. 138 N.I. Act, titled Sanjay Singh Vs Reena Jha & Anr bearing complaint case C.T Case No. 2193/2017.

2.1 By the impugned judgment, appellant-accused Reena Jha was convicted of offence punishable u/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. By order on sentence dated 02.07.2025, appellant/ convict - Reena Jha was directed to pay the cheque amount of Crl. Appeal No. 280/2025 Reena Jha Vs The State & Anr Page 2 of 5 Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a from the date of cheque till the date of payment, within a period of sixty days from the date of order on sentence, to the complainant. In default of payment of the same, appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The compensation amount, if not paid within time, was to be recoverable as fine u/s 461 r/w 471 BNSS.

4. Hereinafter, Reena Jha who was the accused in the complaint case is referred to as 'the appellant' and Sanjay Singh who was the drawee of the cheque in question and the complainant is referred to as 'the respondent'. During the pendency of the trial, the respondent passed away and he was represented by his successor - Mohit who is his son.

5. The defence put-forth by the appellant against the formal charge /notice framed on her by the Ld. Trial Court on 20.10.2018 was that she had lost her signed cheque and for which she had filed a complaint with the police on 30.11.2016. Hence, the defence is that the cheque in question was lost from the possession of the appellant.

6. The primary ground on which the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned order is that the Ld. Trial Court had erred in not accepting the defence of the appellant which was duly proved according to her by her in the trial.

7. The said defence has been dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court in para no. 22 of the impugned judgment.

7.1. Loosing a document is not something that is rare. But, loosing a document which is a valuable security is a bit rare because a person exercises higher caution to protect and preserve such security. Loosing a document which is a valuable security and thereafter its coming in possession of a person who has some/any monetary interest / transaction with the looser is rarer. The probabilities get multiply in such a case and therefore, such events become rarer. For example getting, '1' on role of a die is '1/6' but, probability of getting '1' on each of the two dice rolled simultaneously is '1/6' x '1/6' which amounts to '1/36'. By similar logic, loosing a cheque is rare and thereafter its being found by a person to whom such looser owes money is rarer. Thus, the appellant was burdened with proving such rarer defence by producing material of extraordinary probative value.

7.2. The said rarity of probability is appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court when it recorded that the appellant deposed that she had lost the cheque while standing in queue for the bank and same was misplaced from there, DW-1 had not alleged that the complainant was also standing in the same queue. Thus, it is not acceptable to the yardstick of ordinary prudence that such fantastic defence be accepted.

7.3. The Ld. Trial Court has found the defence to be an extraordinary co-incident which is not digestable. This fantastic nature of the defence is lend assurance by the fact that the appellant did not bother to inform her bank regarding the loss of cheque nor did she issue any stop payment instruction to the bank.

8. Hence, it is found that the Ld. Trial Court was correct in arriving at the finding that the defence raised by the appellant in the trial was not a probable defence. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

9. Trial court record along with an attested copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.

10. Appeal be consigned to Record Room, as per rules.

Digitally signed by NIPUN NIPUN AWASTHI AWASTHI Date:

Pronounced in the open                                        2026.05.21
                                                              16:47:31
Court on 21.05.2026.                                          +0530


                                                 (NIPUN AWASTHI)
                                            Addl. Sessions Judge -08(West)
                                               Tis Hazari Courts Delhi




Crl. Appeal No. 280/2025          Reena Jha Vs The State & Anr       Page 5 of 5