Delhi District Court
Harish Gupta vs Deepak Verma on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NITESH GOEL, LD. JMFC (NI ACT-09)
S.W. DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
CT. CASE No. 12715/2019
CNR NO. DLSW02-016704-2019
HARISH GUPTA
S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gupta
R/o H. No. A-104, Vikas Nagar Extn.
Near Rajdhani Public School
New Delhi
..........Complainant
VERSUS
DEEPAK VERMA
S/o Sh. Vinod Verma
R/o H. No. 51/51A, Ground Floor,
Vikas Nagar, Phase-1, Near MRK
Public School, New Delhi ..........Accused
Date of Institution : 25.06.2016
Offence complained of : u/s 138 N.I. Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial
Date of decision : 20.12.2025
Decision : Convicted
CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 1
Digitally
signed by
NITESH
NITESH GOEL
GOEL Date:
2025.12.20
15:12:45
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely Harish Gupta (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") against accused namely Deepak Verma (hereinafter referred to as "accused") u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' in short.
2. BRIEF FACTS That the father of the accused and complainant was in friendly relations for last many years. That the father of the accused and the complainant having a friendly relationship and are well known to each other. That the accused had approached the complainant and requested him for a friendly loan of Rs. 7 lakhs as the accused was facing financial problems and wanted to come out of dire financial crisis with the help of friendly loan. That the complainant is a kind hearted man acceded on the request of accused (as the father of accused was in close friend of complainant) and in the month of December 2015, the complainant had given a friendly loan of Rs. 7 lakhs and the accused assured the deponent to repay the friendly loan within period of four months.
That the accused after expiry of four months period for the due repayment of the friendly loan, issued two cheques bearing no. 547185 dated 02.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and cheque bearing no. 547186 dated 16.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs both drawn on State Bank of India, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi and further assured the complainant that the aforesaid cheque will be duly encashed on its presentation as the accused was having sufficient funds in his account for the encashment of the cheques.
That the complainant presented the above said cheques, upon presentation the cheque bearing no. 547185 dated 02.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and cheque bearing no. 547186 dated 16.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, both drawn on State Bank of CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 2 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:12:51 India, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi were dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and were returned vide cheque return memos dated 11.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 respectively. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 11.05.2016 to the accused through speed post which was duly served upon him. Since the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheques in question within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of legal demand notice, hence, the complainant has moved the court with the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").
3. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT The cognizance of the complaint was taken and prima facie the offence u/s 138 NI Act was made out against Deepak Verma, who was summoned vide order dated 25.06.2016. The notice u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 14.08.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, u/s 145(2) of NI Act moved by the accused was allowed and complainant examined himself as CW-1 and CE was closed. Statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 04.06.2022. Thereafter, the judgment was pronounced however due to the legal infirmity in the procedure adopted in examining the accused u/s 313 CrPC, the Ld. Appellate Court had remanded back the case to this court vide order dated 20.02.2024 to re-examine the accused u/s 313 CrPC and pass a reasoned judgment.
Thereafter, the SA in accordance with the law was recorded by this court on 22.08.2024 in which the accused chose to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the accused moved the 311 CrPC application to re-examine the complainant and the same was allowed and CW-1 was re-cross examined u/s 311 CrPC on 04.08.2025. Accused examined Ms. Shashi Gupta (wife of the complainant) as DW-1 and DE was closed on 04.08.2025. The matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties on 15.12.2025 and the matter is fixed for judgment.
CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 3 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:12:56
4. EVIDENCE In the pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself as CW-1 on affidavit vide Ex. CW1/A and placed reliance on the complaint and certain documents i.e. Cheques in Question Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW-1/2, Cheque Return Memos Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW-1/4, Legal Demand Notice Ex. CW1/5, Postal Receipts Ex. CW1/6 and Tracking Report Ex. CW1/7.
5. LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION At the very outset, it is pertinent to lay down the ingredients of the offence u/s. 138 of NI Act. In Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India culled out the following ingredients in order to constitute an offence u/s. 138 of NI Act:
"13. It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 4 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:12:59 drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
6. Being cumulative, 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 Act."
14. Before moving forward with the contentions of the accused, it is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of section 118(a) and Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan 139 of the NI Act, in every case u/s. 138 of NI Act, there is a presumption of law that the cheque has been issued for consideration and in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.
15. It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein it has been held that the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the court is bound to raise presumption u/s. 118 r/w. 139 NI Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
7. In the facts of the present case, the signatures on the cheque in question have been admitted by the accused. Accordingly, this court raises presumption u/s. 118(a) r/w. section 139 of NI Act that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is now on the CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 5 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:13:03 +0530 accused to raise a probable defence and to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
8. DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
(i) First Defence:
The first defence raised by the accused is that the complainant does not have the financial capability to grant the loan. Further, he stated that complainant had failed to mention his source of funds and also did not show his ITR of the relevant period.
Observation of First Defence:
Accused has stated that complainant is not financially sound enough to give a loan of Rs. 7 lakhs to him. Accused has further stated that complainant has not shown his ITR nor has shown his bank statement in order to prove his financial capability. The complainant during the cross-examination had stated that he used to earn Rs. 15000/- per month at the time of filing of the present complaint. He further stated that he arranged the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs partly from his own savings, partly from the saving of his wife, partly from the money given by the son and also arranged Rs. 2 lakhs from his friend Praveen. The complainant had further stated that his son Manish used to work out of India since 2007 and whenever he used to visit India, he used to pay him in cash. The court is of the view that although the complainant has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt his source of funds but nevertheless he has furnished a plausible and reasonable explanation of his source of fund. But as the complainant is having the presumption u/s 139 NI Act therefore the onus is upon the accused to disprove the financial capability of the complainant by leading the cogent evidence.
The accused had not placed on record any cogent evidence to prove the financial incapability of the complainant. As the complainant has successfully been able to draw the presumption u/s 139 NI Act in his favour therefore the accused needs to rebut the CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 6 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:13:07 same by producing any cogent evidence for proving the financial incapability of the complainant. Mere taking a plea that complainant does not have the good financial capability would not serve any purpose. In the present case, the absence of the sufficient proof of the source of funds for advancing the loan is not fatal to the case of the complainant.
Reliance has been placed on Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106, wherein it was held that:
In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant. The aspect relevant for consideration had been as to whether the accused-appellant has brought on record such facts/material/circumstances which could be of a reasonably probable defence.
CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 7 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:13:11 Reliance has been placed on Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., wherein it was held that:
Also, after receipt of the legal notice, wherein the Appellant- Complainant alleged that the Respondent No.1-Accused's cheque had bounced, no complaint or legal proceeding was initiated by the Respondent No.1-Accused alleging that the cheque was not to be encashed. Consequently, the defence of financial Criminal Appeal No.1755/2010 Page 10 of 19 incapacity of Appellant-Complainant advanced by the Respondent No.1-Accused is an afterthought.
(ii) Second Defence:
Accused had stated that he had given the blank signed cheque in question to his father and as the complainant was in the friendly terms with his father therefore complainant had misused the cheque in question.
Observation of Second Defence:
Perusal of the file reveals that the accused had nowhere mentioned the purpose for which he had kept the cheque in question as blank signed cheque in the possession of his father. Accused had failed to explain the purpose for which he had given the alleged blank cheque in question to his father. Mere raising a plea that he had given the blank cheque in question to his father without any reasonable cause would not serve any purpose.
Further, the accused had failed to describe properly as to how the complainant got into the possession of the cheque in question. The accused had just taken a plea that father of the accused and the complainant used to sit together at Nikhil Electricals for the property business where the complainant might have got the CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 8 NITESH GOEL Digitally signed by NITESH GOEL opportunity to get the hold of the alleged blank cheque in question. Although it has come on record that the complainant used to have the friendly relation with the father of the accused and they both used to sit at the Nikhil Electricals for the property business. However, the relevant question here arises that why the father of the accused used to keep the blank signed cheque of the accused at Nikhil Electricals. Further, the accused had failed to bring his father into the witness box who could have proved the circumstances in which he used to keep the blank signed cheques of his son at Nikhil Electricals and the circumstances in which the complainant had got the opportunity to steal the alleged blank cheque in question.
Further, the accused or his father had not filed any police complaint or taken any legal recourse when he came to know that the complainant had stolen and misused the cheques in question.
In light of the facts discussed above and further considering the conduct of the accused in not filing any police complaint, the plea taken by the accused that cheque in question had been stolen by the complainant from his father possession, seems to be an afterthought. The defence taken by the accused do not inspires the confidence of the court and same seems to be unconvincing. The accused had failed to raise a probable defence by way of preponderance of probability that accused had not issued the cheque in the discharge of the corresponding amount of the legal existing liability.
Reliance has been placed on Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs. Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999, wherein it was held that:
The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances, CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 9 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:13:19 upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.
(iii) Third Defence:
It is stated by the accused that he has not received the legal demand notice. However, during the framing of notice and the framing of the SA u/s 313 CrPC vide order dated 22.08.2024, accused had admitted that the address mentioned in the legal demand notice is correct.
Observation on Third Defence:
Vide Ex. CW-1/6, Complainant has proved the postal receipt to the legal demand notice and vide Ex. CW-1/7, complainant had proved tracking report to the postal receipt. The tracking report Ex. CW-1/7 shows that the legal demand notice has been served. Even if the court believes that the accused did not receive the legal demand notice, the complainant had discharged his onus by posting the legal demand notice to the last known correct address of the accused. In light of the same, the defence of the accused stands discarded.
Reliance has been placed on K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3762, it was held that no doubt Section 138 of the Act does not require that the notice should be given only by `post'. Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 (quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service. Any other interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as the drawer of the cheque CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 10 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.20 15:13:23 who is liable to pay the amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding the notice.
9. FINAL ORDER In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the view that the defences raised by the accused seem to be improbable and the accused is not able to rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act raised in favour of the complainant by way of standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Resultantly, the accused Deepak Verma stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Let a signed copy of the Judgment be supplied to the accused, free of cost, and a copy of the same be placed on record.
Digitally
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN signed by
NITESH
COURT ON 20.12.2025 NITESH GOEL
GOEL Date:
2025.12.20
15:13:27
+0530
(Nitesh Goel)
JMFC-09 (NI Act), S.W., Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi/20.12.2025
CT. CASE No. 12715/2019 Harish Gupta Vs. Deepak Verma 11