Delhi District Court
Mohd Rahim vs Sita Ram on 29 January, 2026
DLST020014962020
Presented on : 15.01.2020
Registered on : 17.01.2020
Decided on : 29.01.2026
Decision : Convicted
IN THE COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT) -03
AT SOUTH, SAKET DISTRICT COURT
(PRESIDED OVER BY MS.ANKITA BHATIA)
CT Cases/2352/2020
CNR NO.DLST-020-014962-2020
JUDGMENT
MOHD RAHIM Son of Mohd. Malik R/o L-1-2193/A-10/2, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
..............Complainant Versus SITA RAM Son of Mr.Gulab Singh R/o L-1-2073, Gali NO.9, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
..............Accused Offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Digitally signed by ANKITA ANKITA BHATIA Date: CT Cases 2352/2020 BHATIA 2026.01.29 16:58:43 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram +0530 Page No.1 of 14 STATEMENT IN BRIEF OF THE DECISION WITH REASONS FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The instant proceeding has originated out of a complaint preferred by Mohd. Rahim (complainant) against Mr.Sita Ram (accused) for an offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act").
2. A succinct account of the facts in the complaint is that the accused had demanded a friendly loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant in the month of February 2019. The complainant had given the same to him on 14.02.2019, which the accused had promised to return on 30.08.2019. Towards the aforesaid liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing number 206985 dated 30.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Corportion Bank, Deoli Branch, New Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the "cheque in question").
3. When the complainant presented the cheque in question for encashment, the same was firstly dishonoured with remarks 'funds insufficient" vide return memo dated 04.10.2019. The complainant again presented the said cheque in question on assurances by the accused but was returned unpaid upon presentation for the reason "payment stopped by drawer" vide Digitally signed by ANKITA ANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29 Page No.2 of 1416:58:49 +0530 return memo dated 16.11.2019. A legal notice dated 05.12.2019 was duly sent by the complainant to the accused in this regard, but to no avail as the accused failed to pay the amount of cheque within the prescribed period. Hence, the present complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND TRIAL
4. The accused had entered appearance in response to summons on 12.04.2022. Notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") was served upon accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, his plea of defence was recorded wherein the accused admitted his signature on the cheque in question but denied filling the particulars of it. In his defense, the accused stated that the cheque in question has been stolen and misused by the complainant.
5. The complainant was cross-examined after application under Section 145 (2) of NI Act was allowed. Further, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidences were denied by him and stated that the complainant has stolen the cheque in question, for which a complaint was filed and thereafter stop payment instructions were Digitally signed by ANKITA ANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29 Page No.3 of 1416:58:54 +0530 given to his bank.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE COMPLAINANT
6. To support his case, the complainant had examined two witnesses i.e. Mohd.Rahim (complainant himself) as CW-1 and Mr.Gauri Shankar as CW-2.
7. Complainant as CW-1 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. The complainant had relied upon; Ex.CW1/1 till Ex.CW1/8 (colly).
8. CW-2 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW2/A and was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE ACCUSED
9. On the other hand, the accused examined four defence witnesses to support his case i.e. himself as DW-1, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma as DW-2, Mr.Shray Gautam as DW-3 and Mr.Mangain Paswan as DW-4.
10. DW-1 tendered his evidence and was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Digitally
signed by
ANKITA
ANKITA BHATIA
CT Cases 2352/2020 BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29
Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram Page No.4 of 14
16:58:58
+0530
11. DW-2 also tendered his evidence and was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
12. DW-3 further tendered his evidence, relied upon the document i.e. Ex.DW3/A (colly) and was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
13. DW-4 also tendered his evidence and was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
14. Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
15. Ld. Counsel for the complainant had argued that the accused handed over the cheque in question for discharge of his liability, which was dishonored on presentation. Thereafter, a legal demand notice was also sent, however, no payment was made by the accused within the stipulated time. Thus, all the requisites of Section 138 NI Act are met. Ld. counsel for the complainant had further argued that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Thus, presumption under Section 139 NI Act also activates in his favour. He further submitted that to prove the transaction in question, he examined CW-2, who was a witness to Digitally signed by ANKITA CT Cases 2352/2020 ANKITA BHATIA Date:
Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA 2026.01.29 16:59:03 Page No.5 of 14 +0530 the present transaction and has duly supported the case of the complainant. He also argued that the case of the accused suffers from various defects and inconsistencies. Thus, the accused has no real defense, and is liable to be convicted.
16. Ld. Counsel for the accused had, on the other side, argued that no loan was ever advanced by the complainant, and the cheque in question was stolen by the complainant and thereafter, stop payment instructions were given by the accused to his bank. He further argued the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant. Hence, the present case deserves to be dismissed.
17. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels for the complainant and accused. I have perused the record and considered the same. Before embarking to decide the present case, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant law and case laws.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa v.
Mudibasappa, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 491 at page 422 held as follows:
(i) Once the execution of cheques is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheques was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.Digitally signed by ANKITA
ANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date: 2026.01.29 Page No.6 of 14 16:59:08 +0530
(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 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
19. Further, the three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. S. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 had ruled that existence of liability itself is a presumption of law as mandated by Section 139 of NI Act.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alavi Haji v.
Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 236 at page 565 held as follows:
"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 Digitally signed ANKITA by ANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date: 2026.01.29 16:59:14 +0530 Page No.7 of 14 Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
FINDINGS AND REASONING
21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the accused in his plea of defense at the time of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has admitted his signature on the cheque in question. Therefore, the Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e., firstly, regarding the consideration as contained in Section 118
(a) therein and, secondly, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder of cheque, received the same for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Hence, onus was upon the accused to rebut the said presumptions.
22. How the presumptions can be rebutted by the accused was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Rajesh Jain versus Ajay Singh1, wherein it was held as under:
"42. In other words, the accused is left with two options. The first option-of proving that the debt/liability does not exist-is to lead defence evidence and conclusively establish with certainty that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The second option is to prove the non-existence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the particular circumstances of the case........
The nature of evidence required to shift the evidential burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by the opposite party; it may Digitally signed 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866 by ANKITA ANKITA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29 16:59:19 +0530 CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram Page No.8 of 14 comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact.
44. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the instrument was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability and, if he adduces acceptable evidence, the burden again shifts to the complainant. At the same time, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and, if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling the burden may likewise shift to the complainant.
It is open for him to also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance those mentioned in Section 114 and other Sections of the Evidence Act. The burden of proof may shift by presumptions of law or fact."
23. Accordingly, I proceed to consider the contentions raised by the accused to rebut the presumptions.
24. The first contention raised by the accused is that he did not fill the particulars of the cheque. It is relevant to mention that the accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque. It is a settled law that when a person hands over a blank signed instrument to another, then by virtue of Section 20 NI Act, an implied authority is also given to complete the said instrument. The law nowhere requires that only the holder of the cheque can fill the same. Moreover, a person issuing a blank cheque is supposed to understand the consequences of doing so. Hence, the mere plea that the accused did not fill the particulars of the cheque does not come to the rescue of the accused. Thus, this defense is of no assistance to accused. Relevance in this regard can be placed upon Jaspal Digitally signed ANKITA by ANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 BHATIA Date: 2026.01.29 16:59:25 +0530 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram Page No.9 of 14 Singh v. State2, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and Ravi Chopra v. State3.
25. The main defence taken by the accused is that on 17.09.2019, he alongwith the complainant went to Budh Bazaar, and he was carrying a folder containing a blank signed cheque and voter ID Card. It is his case that he had to hand over the cheque to Anil Kumar Sharma. There, he met Mangain Paswan. The accused handed over the folder to the complainant and went to toilet. After coming back, he took the folder back from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant along with Mangain Paswan left. Afterwards, when the accused searched the cheque for handing it over to Anil Kumar Sharma, he could not find the cheque and his voter ID. Accordingly, he filed a missing complaint before the concerned police station. It is further his defense that on 16.11.2019, he received a phone call from the bank intimating about the presentation of cheque in question. On receipt of such information, the accused gave stop payment instructions to his bank and also filed a complaint against the complainant.
26. To prove his defense, the accused also examined Anil Kumar Sharma as DW-2, Mangain Paswan as DW-4 and bank witness as Digitally 2 Crl. Rev. 160/2016. signed by 3 2008 (102) DRJ 147. ANKITA ANKITA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29 CT Cases 2352/2020 16:59:30 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram +0530 Page No.10 of 14 DW-3.
27. Perusal of the missing report/ complaint dated 18.09.2019 i.e. Ex.DW1/C1 filed by the accused reveals that the accused has mentioned the cheque number in the body of the complaint as "206981". Further, in the subject of the said complaint, though the cheque number is correctly mentioned as "206985", however, there is an apparent overwriting in the last digit of the cheque number, wherein it appears that digit "1" is overwritten as "5". No explanation has been put forth by the accused for mentioning the wrong cheque number or the said overwriting.
28. It is also pertinent that the cheque in question was firstly presented by the complainant for encashment in October, 2019, which was dishonoured due to funds insufficiency on 04.10.2019. Thus, despite presentation of the cheque by the complainant and its dishonor on 04.10.2019, no action was taken by the accused at that time against the complainant for misuse of his cheque. It is only on 16.11.2019, when the complainant again presented the cheque, the accused woke up and realized to give stop payment instructions i.e. after two months of the incident. No explanation was put forth by the accused to explain as to why stop payment instructions were not given to his bank by him since 17.09.2019 or atleast after 04.10.2019. A person who loses or misplaces his Digitally signed CT Cases 2352/2020 ANKITA by ANKITA BHATIA Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date: 2026.01.29 16:59:36 +0530 Page No.11 of 14 cheque is required to act diligently in the matter. It is expected out of a reasonably prudent person that in case his cheque is misplaced, he would promptly file a missing report regarding the same as well as give stop payment instructions to his bank. However, in the present case, the missing report is not clear as to the very cheque number of the cheque lost and the accused also failed to act with required promptness in giving stop payment instructions to his bank.
29. Moreover, in his examination in chief, the accused has stated that he went to Budh Bazaar to handover the cheque to Anil Kumar Sharma for some work done by him for the accused. DW-2 Anil Kumar Sharma also deposes on a similar line that he had done some civil work for the accused. However, in his deposition before another court in section 156(3) Cr.P.C. proceedings between the parties, Anil Kumar Sharma has deposed as a witness therein and stated that the cheque had to be handed to him by the accused as he had given a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the present accused. No plausible explanation was put forth either by the accused or DW-2 regarding such contradictory statements. Thus, from the above, the court is of the view that there are major inconsistencies regarding the very purpose for which the cheque had to be handed over, which weakens the defense of the accused.
Digitally signed by ANKITAANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date: 2026.01.29 Page No.12 of 14 16:59:40 +0530
30. Similarly, the accused in his examination in his chief as well as statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was carrying blank signed cheque with him on 17.09.2019 and the particulars were to be filled by Anil Kumar Sharma. Similarly, DW-4 Mangain Paswan has stated in his cross examination that he had seen the said cheque and it only contained the signature of the accused, without any amount. But, to the contrary when the accused was asked in his cross examination that in his missing report/ complaint Ex. DW1/C1 he had stated the amount in cheque as Rs.2,00,000/-, the accused in his cross examination stated that the amount was filled by his son. Thus, such inconsistencies pertaining to the particulars of the cheque further create a gap in the defense taken by the accused.
31. In view of the court, the whole defence of the accused is marred with inconsistencies, and the accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions of law. On the other hand, the complainant has been able to prove the transaction with aid of presumption as well as examination of CW-2, who has stated to witness the loan transaction.
32. Thus, all the defences raised by the accused have remained to be merely assertions as the accused has failed to bring on record any Digitally signed by ANKITA ANKITA BHATIA CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29 Page No.13 of 1416:59:46 +0530 cogent evidence to rebut the presumptions. In view of the above discussion and citations, the court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant, and the complainant has been able to proof its case. Accordingly, the accused Sita Ram is convicted of offence under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque bearing number 206985 dated 30.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Corportion Bank, Deoli Branch, New Delhi.
33. Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Announced in the Open Court on this 29th January 2026 This Judgment consists of 14 signed pages.
Digitally
signed by
ANKITA
ANKITA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.01.29
16:59:54
+0530
(ANKITA BHATIA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) -03 South/Saket/New Delhi/29.01.2026 CT Cases 2352/2020 Mohd.Rahim v. Sita Ram Page No.14 of 14