Delhi District Court
Pankaj Singh vs Mandeep Singh on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Criminal Complaint No.: 39080/2019
Pankaj Singh ......... Complainant
Versus
Mandeep Singh ......... Accused
1. Name & address of the complainant: : Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Singh, s/o Sh. Kailash
Prasad Singh, r/o RZ-
409B, Street No. 11C,
Kailash Puri
Extension, Palam
Colony, New Delhi-
110045
2. Name & address of the accused : Mandeep Singh, s/o
Sh. Tejender Singh,
r/o H.No. 725/3A,
Gali no. 5, Military
Road, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, New
Delhi-110005
3. Offence complained of : U/S 138, The
CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 1/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.12.23
17:32:40
+0530
Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881.
4. Date of Institution of case : 19.10.2019
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of decision : 23.12.2025
CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 2/16
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.12.23
17:32:41
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case as filed by the complainant, Pankaj Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against accused Mandeep Singh, (hereinafter referred to as the accused). The present complaint has been filed against the accused u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. The brief facts as alleged by the complainant in his complaint are that accused had availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14.01.2017 and as per agreement, in case, accused failed to repay the said loan, he would be liable to pay Rs. 250/- per day and also issued one cheque (cheque in question) cheque bearing no 038643, dated 05.08.2019, Rs. 2,85,000/- drawn at ICICI Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Branch and further assured the complainant that the same shall be honoured on presentation. When complainant presented the above-mentioned cheque in question the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant vide cheque returning memos dated 07.08.2019 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
3. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal demand notice upon the accused through his counsel on 04.09.2019 and upon the expiry of statutory period when accused failed to make the payment of cheque in question, complainant had filed the present complaint case.
CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 3/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:42 +0530
4. In order to prove his case, complainant in the pre-summoning evidence, examined himself as CW1 by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied upon following documents which are as follows:
Ex.CW1/1 is the loan agreement.
Ex.CW-1/2 is the cheque in question.
Ex.CW-1/3 is the cheque returning memo. Ex.CW1/4 is the legal notice Ex.CW1/5 is the postal receipt.
Ex. CW1/6 is the courier receipt.
5. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence and upon finding prima facie case against the accused, pre-summoning evidence was concluded on 21.10.2019 and summons were issued to accused on the very same day.
6. Thereafter Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against both the accused on accused on 25.06.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused admitted taking the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant. Accused further admitted issuing the cheque as security in blank signed manner. He admitted repaying an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant. He admitted a liability of Rs. 70,000/-. He admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but denied filling in the particulars. Accused further admitted receiving of any legal demand notice.
7. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded against both the accused persons on 30.10.2025 wherein all the incriminating evidence CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 4/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:42 +0530 were put before the accused wherein admitted issuing the cheques in question in blank signed manner and further admitted taking the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He denied receiving of legal notice.
8. While recording statement of account u/ 313 Cr.P.C, accused submitted that he does not wish to lead DE and vide separate statement, DE stands closed.
9. Final arguments were concluded and record of the case and evidence of both the parties was thoroughly perused.
10.In the final arguments, the counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has been able to prove all the ingredients u/s 138 NI Act which stood corroborated by the documentary evidence led in the evidence. The counsel for complainant further submitted that accused has not brought any defence and has neither rebutted the presumption arising in favour of the complainant in terms of Section 118 & 139 of NI Act in as much as testimony of complainant has remained uncontroverted in material particulars.
11.On the other hand, counsel for accused stated that there were many contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and as such complainant has not been able to prove any liability of the accused.
12.Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic provision of Section 138 of NI Act,1881. In order to ascertain CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 5/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:40 +0530 whether accused has committed offence u/s 138 NI Act the following ingredients have to be proved which are as follows:
A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability; cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; That cheque has been 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;
The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving 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; and 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.
13.The Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (AIR 2001 SC 3897), observed as follows:
Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amounts for which the cheque are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, (AIR 1958 SC 61), it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused (ibid)."
14.Thus, as laid down in catena of decisions it is an established law that onus lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being preponderance of probability. Therefore, it CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 6/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:42 +0530 becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Section 118 & 139 of NI Act.
15.Being cumulative, it goes without saying that 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 u/s 138 NI Act. This criminal liability can be attached by proving each of the elements of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced. I shall now go on to appreciate the evidence, documentary or oral, in the light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if it all.
Appreciation of Evidence and finding:
16.In the present matter, the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason 'funds insufficient' on 07.08.2019. The record, complainant has brought to substantiate his point are the cheque dated 05.08.2019 as Ex. CW1/2, cheque return memo dated 07.08.2019. as Ex. CW1/3. The legal demand notice dated Ex. CW1/4, Postal receipt and Tracking report Ex. CW1/5 & Ex.CW1/6.
17.The first condition as per Section 138 NI Act pertains to the issuance of cheque in question to make payment from an account maintained by the drawer of the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Also, In the facts of the present case, the signature on the cheque in question and the issuance of the cheque has not been denied by accused and accordingly, this court raises presumption under section 118(a) r/w CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 7/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:41 +0530 section 139 of NI Act that the cheque in question were issued by accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is now on the accused to raise a probable defence and to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
18.In this regard the following judgment can be relied upon:
In the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 309], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the NI Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability."
19.In the present case the primary defence that the accused has taken is that there is no legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant and against him as he has issued the cheque in question for the purpose of security and that he had only taken an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant.
20.Accused at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.PC on 25.06.2022 stated that he had taken a loan of ₹1,00,000/- from the complainant and had given the cheque in question in blank signed manner as security to the complainant.
21. To rebut the statutory presumptions the accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 8/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:41 +0530 note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated.
22. Before, evaluating the claim of the accused let us understand the position with regard to the security cheque: Section 138 of NI Act does not distinguish between a cheque issued by the debtor in discharge of an existing debt or other liability, or a cheque issued as a security cheque on the premise that on the due future date the debt which shall have crystallized by then, shall be paid.
23. Reliance can be placed upon the judgement in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. v.
Beena Shabbir & Anr. reported in AIR 10 2002 SC 3014, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows.
".........The commencement of the Section stands with the words "where any cheque". The above noted three words are of extreme significance, in particular, by reason of the user of the word "any" the first three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the highlighted words if read with the first three words at the commencement of Section 138, leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reason it may be, the liability under this provision cannot be avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well."
24. Thus, even if the dishonoured cheque in question was issued as a security cheque, it will still come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, the defence of the accused that cheque in question was issued CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 9/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:42 +0530 as security cheque has no force. further the accused has himself admitted his signatures on the written agreement dated 14.01.2017, Ex. CW-1/1 (Annexure-A). The execution of the said agreement stands admitted by the accused. Moreover, the accused has not disputed the clause in Ex. CW-1/1 which authorises the complainant to present the cheque upon default. The agreement specifically records that the accused had handed over a duly signed cheque bearing no. 038643 to the complainant, with the authority to present the same in the event of failure to discharge the liability as agreed. In view of the above, the defence of the accused that the cheque was issued merely as a security cheque is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected.
25. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.S. Yadav v. Reena CRL. A. NO. 1136 Of 2010 wherein it was held that:
"Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act. If mere statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. or under Section 281 Cr. P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued."
26. Another defence taken by the accused is that he has returned some amount to the complainant and does not owe the cheque amount. Accused in his notice framed under section 251 CRPC on 25.06.2022 stated that he has repaid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and only Rs. 70,000/- was pending towards the complainant. However, in his statement recorded under section 313 CRPC he stated that he has made certain payments to CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 10/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:42 +0530 the complainant in cash before the institution of the present matter and thereafter he got the matter settled for an amount of rupees 1,85,000 and had made payment of rupees 80,000/- to the complainant. The accused in the present matter, has not produced any cogent proof to show that he had made the payments to the complainant. No receipt or any documentary evidence of the payments made has been filed by the accused during the entire course of trial. Further, the accused has attempted to establish his defence only through the answers given at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr. PC and statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The accused has not brought on record even a single document which could show that the cheque was not given to the complainant for the purpose as alleged by the complainant.
27.Also, Throughout the course of trial, the accused did not whisper anything about the recourse that he took to procure back the cheque when he owed no liability towards the complainant. Also, the accused did not file a complaint either with his bank or with the police in order to ensure that his submitted cheque was not misused. Failure to lodge or file any complaint regarding misuse of cheque by the complainant causes dubiety to lurk around the story of the defence. It will be utter disregard to the established principles of evidence, if this court accepts this oral evidence of accused devoid of any documentary evidence to concretize the proof.
28. In the present matter, the accused admitted his signature on the impugned cheques voluntarily. The burden lied heavily on the accused to have probablised the factum of either proving that the outstandsing amount was returned byt him and that he owed no liability towards the CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 11/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:40 +0530 complainant. In the absence of any credible evidence from the accused, his defense version as portrayed during the framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken a gospel truth.
29.Also, accused at the time of framing of Notice under section 251 Crpc on 25.06.2022 stated that impugned cheque only bears his signatures. No particulars on the cheque were filled up by him. It would be pertinent to mention that Section 20 of the NI Act provides that where one person signs and delivers to another a Negotiable Instrument either wholly blank or having written therein an incomplete negotiable instrument, such person thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp.
30. At this stage, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Bir Singh v.
Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197.
"If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily handed over to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer,"
31. Hence, in view of such clear stipulation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is immaterial whether or not the particulars on the cheque have been filled by the accused or not, to the extent the accused has admitted to have appended his signatures on the cheque in question. Accordingly, the applicability of the presumption CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 12/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:42 +0530 under Section 139 NI Act is not dependent upon the accused filling the particulars on the cheque. Accordingly, it is required to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn consideration and the holder of the cheque i.e., the complainant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, therefore, shifts on the accused to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption. Without placing on record any evidence to disprove that cheque was not issued in discharge of liability, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
32.Accused has remained silent throughout the trial and brought any probable evidence to rebut the presumption. No evidence, material or record has been brought by the accused to substantiate the defence taken by him.
33.Therefore, considering the admission of the accused that signatures on the cheque in question belongs to him, the issuance of the cheque in question in favour of the complainant and compelling documentary evidence placed on record and failure of the accused to put forth any reasonable and believable defence, the first element of the section 138 NI Act stands assembled.
34.As for the second condition qua the presentation of the cheque within three months is concerned, the same is satisfied upon the perusal of the cheque in question cheque bearing no 038643, dated 05.08.2019, Rs. 2,85,000/- for the reason "Funds Insufficient." Thus, being presented within the prescribed period of limitation of three months. The defence did not adduce any evidence whatsoever to contradict the same.
CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 13/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:40 +0530
35.The third condition pertains to the cheque being returned unpaid owing to it being dishonored. Bank returning memos dated 07.08.2019 (Ex. CW1/3) for the reason "Funds Insufficient" or slip is prima- facie proof of the dishonor. Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188, in this regard comes into play which raises a presumption that the court shall presume the fact of dishonor of the cheque in case of cheque is returned vide a return memo issued by the bank having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored. Perusal of bank dishonour memos shows that cheque in question on being presented in the bank were returned dishonoured due to "Funds Insufficient". As the defence has failed to rebut the said presumption, hence the said condition is also satisfied.
36.Further, the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/4 was served by the complainant upon the accused on the address of the accused. The accused stated during framing of u/s 251 Cr.PC on 25.06.2022 that he had received the legal demand notice from the complainant. However, in his statement recorded under section 313 Crpc he stated that he did not receive the legal demand notice.
37. Perusal of the notice u/s 251 Cr.PC and statement recorded under section 313 Cr.PC reveals that accused had furnished the same address H.No. 725/3A, Gali no. 5, Military Road, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 upon which the legal demand notice was sent by the complainant. Further, the address mentioned on the legal demand notice is the same as mentioned upon the personal bonds furnished by the CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 14/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:40 +0530 accused on his appearance before the court. Therefore, a presumption of deemed service is drawn under section 27 General Clauses Act which provides that where notice is sent to the correct address, the same shall be presumed to have been duly served.
38.Also, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapatti Mohammad (Crl.) 767/2007 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "where the notice is sent by Registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 Act stands complied with. Accused has failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of due service. As such, the legal notice stood served upon the accused, thus implying the satisfaction of the fourth condition.
39.The last condition is that accused fails to make the payment within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the legal demand notice. In the present case, the accused has evidently failed to make the payment within the fifteen days contending that he owes no legal liability to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques in question. The accused has miserably failed to prove the said assertion and thus, the last limb of what will entail the liability against the accused, is also structured.
40. Ratio: Finally, having considered the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant as spelled under section 139 NI Act. The law as laid down under section 138 NI Act, 1881 is made out against the accused. The weight of the evidence adduced by the complainant to prove CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 15/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:41 +0530 his case against the accused is sufficient enough to impute criminality on the accused. Complainant has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, accused Mandeep Singh is held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
41.Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence separately.
42.Let the copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court on Divya Singh 23.12.2025 JMFC-NI Act -03, South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi CC No. 39080/2019 Pankaj Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh 16/16 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.23 17:32:40 +0530