Delhi District Court
Jagbir Singh vs Kalpana Chowdhury on 27 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)-11
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
1. Complainant case number 5148/2021
2. Name of the complainant Sh. Jagbir Singh
S/o Late Sh.Ram Kishan
R/o A-134, First Floor
Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
3. Name, Parentage and address Ms. Kalpana Chowdhury
of the accused person D/o Sh. B.S. Chowdury
R/o 1059/42, DDA Flats, Kalkaji
New Delhi-110019
Also at- F-5, RIICO Industrial Area,
S.W.M.(Sawai Madhopur), Rajasthan
4. Offence complained of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final order Accused is convicted
7. Date of institution 05.10.2021
8. Date of reserving the judgment 26.02.2026
9. Date of pronouncement 27.03.2026
ANSHUL
AGNIHOTRI
Digitally signed
by ANSHUL
AGNIHOTRI
CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs.
Date:
Kalpana Chowdhury Page 1 of 18 2026.03.27
16:55:58 +0530
-:JUDGEMENT:-
1. The present complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') has been filed by Mr. Jagbir Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') against Ms. Kalpana Chowdhury
(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the complaint is that in March-April 2019, accused along with Jitender Singh (manager of accused) approached complainant wherein accused stated that she had been awarded a fishery contract for Soorwal Dam,Sawai Madhopur, by the Government of Rajasthan. Further, it was represented by the accused that her business ensures huge financial return on investments. Accused stated that she had already deposited the substantial money towards the said fishery contract and had to further deposit Rs.40,00,000/- that was not readily available with the accused. It is further stated that on the basis of several documents shown by accused and her manager, complainant agreed to extend a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the accused for a period of 22 months on which Rs.80,00,000/- was assured to be returned in addition to Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant by the accused. Further, loan agreement dated 02.04.2019 was executed by the accused. Complainant, acting on the accused's representations and assurances, gave a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the accused by way of two instalments of Rs.20,00,000/- each on 02.04.2019 and 05.04.2019 through RTGS transfer. Accused reassured and promised the complainant to return the said loan amount and assured returns after a period of 22 months i.e. February 2021 and in this regard accused handed over two cheques towards the principal amount of Digitally CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. signed by ANSHUL Kalpana Chowdhury Page 2 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:56:02 +0530 Rs.40,00,000/- and the assured profits of Rs.80,00,000/- with the assurance that both the cheques will be honoured after a period of 22 months. Subsequently, after expiry of 22 months, accused presented cheque bearing number 186404 dated 22.02.2021 for sum of Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Chittaranjan Park Branch, New Delhi-110041. Subsequently, the said cheque was presented twice on 08.03.2021 and on 06.04.2021 on the request of the accused and it was dishonoured with remarks 'funds insufficent'
3. Upon presentation of the aforesaid cheque (hereinafter referred to as the 'cheque in question'), same got dishonoured vide return memo dated 08.04.2021 with the remarks "Kindly contact Drawer/Drawee Bank and please present again". Thereafter, a legal demand notice dated 03.05.2021 was duly sent to accused by the complainant at its available address. The demand notice was duly served to the accused and the accused failed to pay the amount qua cheque in question within the statutory period. Hence, the present complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed against the accused.
4. Upon issuance of summons accused entered her appearance in the present matter for the first time on 10.01.2022 and was admitted to bail. Further, it was ensured that copy of complaint with relevant documents has been supplied to the accused. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') was served upon the accused on 22.07.2022 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PLEA OF DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
5. In her plea of defence, accused admitted her signatures. Accused stated that she Digitally signed by CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Kalpana Chowdhury Page 3 of 18 AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:56:06 +0530 had the liability of Rs.40,00,000/- towards the complainant, out of which Rs.22,00,000/- has already been repaid to the complainant. Further accused had stated that the said sum had been repaid in different instalments through her staff and middle man (aadhti). It is further submitted that the complainant did not give any receipt to the accused regarding part payment. Accused denied any liability towards the complainant. Accused denied receiving of legal demand notice from the complainant, however, admitted that one of the addresses mentioned on the notice is correct. Thereafter, accused was granted an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant u/s 145(2) NI Act and matter was fixed for complainant's evidence. COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to support its case, complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and tendered evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.CW1/1 wherein averments made in the complaint were reiterated. He also relied upon various documents such as:-
S. No. Particulars Exhibits
1 Copy of loan agreement Ex.CW1/A
2 Original cheque bearing number 186404 dated Ex.CW-1/B
22.02.2021 for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-
3 Return Memo dated 23.02.2021 Ex.CW-1/C
4 Return Memo dated 09.03.2021 Ex.CW-1/D
5 Return Memo dated 08.04.2021 Ex.CW1/E
6 Postal Receipts Ex.CW1/G(colly)
7 Tracking Report Ex. CW1/H
8 Print out of screenshot of notice sent on Mark A
accused's WhatsApp number
9 Statement of account 20.09.2018-12.03.2019 Ex.CW1/I
Digitally
signed by
CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. ANSHUL
ANSHUL
AGNIHOTRI
Kalpana Chowdhury Page 4 of 18 AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:11
+0530
10 Computation of income of complainant's wife Ex.CW1/J
FY 2017-18
11 Computation of income of complainant's wife Ex.CW1/K
FY 2018-19
12 Computation of income of the complainant FY Ex. CW1/L
2018-19
13 Computation of income of the complainant FY Ex.CW1/M
2017-18
14 ITR of complainant's wife FY 2017-18 Ex.CW1/N
15 ITR of complainant's wife FY 2018-19 Ex.CW1/O
16 ITR of complainant FY 2017-18 Ex.CW1/P
17 ITR of complainant FY 2018-19 Ex.CW1/Q
18 TDS Certificate Ex.CW1/R
19 Form 26QB Ex.CW1/S
20 Tax payer counterfoil Ex.CW1/T
21 Receipt Ex.CW1/U
22 Stamp Paper dated 07.08.2019 and first page of Ex.CW1/V(colly)
sale deed
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
7. The statement of accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. on 01.07.2023. All the incriminating evidences were put to accused. In her statement, accused stated that she had taken loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from the complainant through two cheques/RTGS of Rs.20,00,000/- each. Out of the same, accused had repaid Rs.22,00,000/- to the complainant through middle man. It is further submitted that remaining Rs.18,00,000/- was supposed to be adjusted in the property deal with the complainant. Further, accused denied any liability towards the complainant and alleged that her security cheques are misused. Further, accused stated that complainant had defrauded her on multiple occasions and Digitally CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. signed by ANSHUL Kalpana Chowdhury Page 5 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:56:29 +0530 opted to lead defence evidence.
8. Final arguments advanced by both the parties. I have perused the case file, documents placed on record by both the parties and duly considered the submission made by Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused has examined three witnesses i.e. Sh. Jitender Chaudhary, Sh. Sanjay Sawhney and Sh. Bhanwar Singh. Further, vide order dated 13.02.2026, defence evidence was closed.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT
10. The factual position being thus, now let us quickly run through the legal benchmark which is to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act :-
(i) 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 three 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 Digitally CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. signed by Kalpana Chowdhury Page 6 of 18 ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:56:33 +0530 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 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;
(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.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. 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 under Section 138 of the Act.
With Respect to first, third and fourth ingredients:-
12. It is pertinent from the averments and evidence adduced by the parties there is no dispute regarding first, third and fourth ingredients. The complainant has proved the original cheque in question vide Ex.CW-1/B that the accused had not disputed as being drawn on his account and admitted her signatures. It is not disputed that the cheque in question were presented within period of validity. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo Ex.CW-1/E with remarks "kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again". However, previously on two occasions cheque was dishonoured on the ground of 'funds insufficient'. The said reason is duly covered within the scheme of NI Act. Therefore, requirement of first, third and fourth ingredients stand fulfilled in the present matter. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. Digitally signed by Kalpana Chowdhury Page 7 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Date: 2026.03.27 16:56:42 +0530 With Respect to fifth and sixth ingredients:-
13. As far as proof of fifth and sixth ingredients are concerned, during framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., accused denied receiving of legal demand notice Ex.CW-1/F from the complainant. However, accused admitted that one of the the addresses mentioned on the legal demand notice is his correct address. Further, as per provisions of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 27 of General Clauses Act, the court may presume that legal notice duly addressed to the accused and dispatched to him by way of post was actually received by the accused, regard being had to the common course of natural events.1Therefore, the legal demand notice in the present case is deemed to have been duly served to the accused. Furthermore, it is also clear from the record that accused has failed to make payment within 15 days from the receipt of notice. Therefore, the requirement of fifth and sixth ingredients also stand fulfilled.
With Respect to second ingredient:-
14. The core question in the present case is that whether the cheque in question has been issued by the accused in discharge of a legal liability or not?
15. For that, let us again briefly recapitulate that accused admitted that cheque in question Ex.CW-1/B bear her signatures. Now, by virtue of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act, a presumption arises in favour of complainant that the cheques in question was issued by accused to discharge a legally enforceable liability. In the recent judgment, M/s Kalamani Tex & Anr. v. P. Balasubramaniyan,2 three 1 C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007(6)SCC555 ANSHUL 2 (2021) 1 SCR 668 AGNIHOTRI CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. Digitally signed by Kalpana Chowdhury Page 8 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Date: 2026.03.27 16:56:51 +0530 Judges bench of the Supreme Court, held that:
"U/s 118 & 139, once issuance of cheque and signature admitted, it is required to presume that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa3.
16. As per the scheme of the NI Act, on proof of foundational facts - a presumption arises as to the cheque having been issued in discharge of a legal liability, and the burden of proof lies upon the accused to rebut the said presumption. It is now fairly well settled that the accused can displace this presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rangappa v. Sri Mohan,4 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence."
17. The accused can either prove that the liability did not exist or make the non existence of liability so probable that a reasonable person ought under the circumstances of the case - act on the supposition that it does not exist. Simply put, the accused has to make out a fairly plausible hypothesis. This the accused can do so either by leading defence evidence or even by punching holes within the case of the complainant in the testing ordeal of cross examination. In the present case, accused has cross-examined the complainant and opted to lead defence evidence. 3 (2019) 5 SCC 418 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI 4 (2010) 11 SCC 441 Digitally signed by CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Kalpana Chowdhury Page 9 of 18 Date: 2026.03.27 16:56:54 +0530
18. It is the case of complainant that he has invested Rs.40,00,000/- in the fishery business of the accused with the assurance from the accused that the said investment would fetch assured profit of Rs.80,00,000/- in addition of principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant. In lieu of said arrangement, loan agreement Ex.CW1/A was executed between parties. The principal defence of the accused is that she had the total liability of Rs.40,00,000/- towards the complainant out of which she had repaid Rs.22,00,000/- in different instalments through her staff and middle man (aadhti). In addition to this, remaining amount is alleged to be adjusted in a property deal between complainant and accused. Further, it is alleged that accused had given blank signed papers to the complainant. Further, it is alleged that his outstanding liability towards the complainant is not to the extent of amount alleged by the complainant and that no independent witnesses to the loan transaction were examined.
19. However, above said contentions of accused do not inspire confidence. A perusal of the loan agreement Ex.CW1/A reveals that the signatures of the accused appear on duly affixed revenue stamps, which indicates that the document was executed consciously and with due deliberation. It is highly improbable that a person would append signatures on stamped portions of a document without being aware of the nature and contents thereof. Moreover, the plea of blank signed documents, in the absence of any cogent evidence explaining the circumstances under which such documents were handed over, or any steps taken by the accused to prevent their alleged misuse, remains a bald and unsubstantiated assertion. It is a settled position of law that mere allegation of signing blank papers does not rebut the statutory Digitally CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. signed by ANSHUL Kalpana Chowdhury Page 10 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:56:58 +0530 presumption unless supported by credible and probable evidence. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the defence of the accused that the loan agreement was a blank signed document, and the execution of Ex. CW1/A stands duly proved.
20. The accused has also examined the stamp vendor as DW-2 in an attempt to discredit the execution of the loan agreement. The said witness deposed, in his examination-in-chief, that he could not specifically recall the sale of the stamp paper to the accused. However, during cross-examination, the witness categorically stated that he had not made any false entries in his records. This testimony, when read in its entirety, does not advance the case of the accused. It is a matter of common experience that a stamp vendor, dealing with numerous transactions on a daily basis, may not be in a position to recollect a particular sale after a lapse of time. The inability of the witness to recall the specific transaction, therefore, cannot be construed to cast doubt on the genuineness of the document. On the contrary, his assertion that no false particulars were entered in the register lends credibility to the regularity of the transaction pertaining to the stamp paper in question. Accordingly, the evidence of the stamp vendor fails to probabilise the defence set up by the accused and does not in any manner dent the case of the complainant regarding the execution of the loan agreement.
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further contended that the terms of the alleged agreement, particularly the assurance of exorbitant returns, render the transaction inherently improbable, irrational, and legally untenable. This submission, however, does not merit acceptance in the facts of the present case. It is not uncommon in private financial arrangements or business ventures, especially those involving Digitally signed by CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. ANSHUL Kalpana Chowdhury Page 11 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:01 +0530 informal sectors, for parties to agree upon high or speculative returns. The mere fact that the agreed consideration appears excessive or commercially unwise does not, by itself, render the transaction illegal or unenforceable, unless it is shown to be opposed to law, public policy, or expressly prohibited by statute.
22. In the present case, the accused has admitted the execution of the loan agreement and has failed to establish that the terms thereof were vitiated by fraud, coercion, or illegality. Even otherwise, the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act are primarily concerned with the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of issuance of the cheque. Once the foundational facts are established and the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act comes into play, the accused cannot escape liability merely by contending that the agreed rate of return was excessive or commercially improbable. Accordingly, this Court finds that the plea regarding the alleged exorbitant nature of the returns does not, in itself, probabilise the defence or rebut the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant.
23. Another defence of the accused is that there was a separate property deal between the complainant and accused wherein accused had sold her flat to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.2,20,00,000/- wherein Rs.18,00,000/- was remaining to be payable by the complainant that was mutually agreed to be adjusted against the alleged liability arising out of present loan transaction. During cross-examination of complainant dated 12.05.2023, the complainant had placed on record a receipt qua above mentioned sale deed Ex. CW1/U. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that the total sale consideration agreed between the parties was Digitally CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. signed by ANSHUL Kalpana Chowdhury Page 12 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:05 +0530 Rs.1,25,00,000/- and not Rs.2,20,00,000/- as now sought to be contended by the accused. This material contradiction goes to the root of the defence and renders the plea of an inflated consideration wholly unreliable. Further, it is noteworthy that no such plea of set-off or adjustment was taken by the accused at the stage of framing of notice, which raises serious doubt about the veracity and afterthought nature of the defence now sought to be introduced. The accused has also failed to produce any independent or contemporaneous document evidencing the alleged adjustment of Rs.18,00,000/- towards the loan liability.
24. In this regard, the bar contained in Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 assumes significance. Once the terms of a contract have been reduced to writing, no evidence shall be given in proof of such terms except the document itself. The accused cannot be permitted to lead oral evidence to vary, contradict, or supplement the contents of a written document, particularly to assert an inflated sale consideration or an alleged set-off arrangement which finds no mention therein. Accordingly, in the absence of any documentary substantiation and in view of the statutory bar under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, the plea of adjustment/set-off raised by the accused is untenable and cannot be accepted.
25. Let's deal with another defence of the accused, that the cheque in question is a security cheque, the defence of the cheque being security cheque does not by itself rebut the presumption. It appears that, if on the date of presentment of cheque, liability of the accused existed towards the complainant, the same would fall under Section 138 NI Act, even if the same was issued as a security cheque; and hence, it is not relevant if the cheque in question was issued with the intent of it being a security CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. Digitally signed by Kalpana Chowdhury Page 13 of 18 ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:10 +0530 cheque. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of the Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat5, it has held that the provisions of Section 138 NI Act apply to cheque issued on advance basis as well, if at the time of presentation of the same, liability exists. Further, it is also alleged on behalf of the accused that the security cheque was misused by the complainant. However, no police complaint was filed or notice or any written intimation was sent by the accused to the complainant regarding misusing of the security cheque. Hence, unless it is shown that no liability existed on the date of presentation, the provision of Section 138 NI Act would apply to cheques issued as security cheques as well. Accordingly, this hypothetical argument/defence of the accused persons, by itself, does not rebut the presumption u/ s 139 NI Act.
26. Regarding the non-reflection of the alleged loan in the complainant's ITR, it is pertinent to note that while such omission may cast some doubt, it cannot be the sole ground to disbelieve the transaction. In Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar,6 it was reiterated:
"Even if the cheque was issued by the accused towards a friendly loan and such loan was not disclosed in the complainant's ITR, the statutory presumption still holds unless rebutted by strong evidence."
Thus, while non-disclosure in ITR may affect the weight of the complainant's evidence, it does not nullify the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act unless accompanied by credible rebuttal evidence.
ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI 5 (2022) 16 SCC 762 6 (2019) 4 SCC 197 Digitally signed by ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. Kalpana Chowdhury Page 14 of 18 Date: 2026.03.27 16:57:13 +0530
27. Further, accused had examined her manager as DW-1 whose testimony contains material contradictions that strike at the root of defence of the accused. During cross- examination of DW-1 dated 17.05.2024 (last paragraph), it is deposed that '....it is incorrect that an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was due from the complaint. It is incorrect Rs.18,00,000/- was adjusted towards the repayment of the loan amount.....'This admission by DW-1 strikes at the very foundation of the defence of alleged set-off/ adjustment arising out of the purported property transaction. Once the own witness of the accused disowns the existence of any such outstanding amount or its adjustment, the defence collapses on its own footing. It is a settled principle that the testimony of a defence witness, when inconsistent with the stand of the accused, seriously undermines the credibility of the defence and renders it improbable. Accordingly, the testimony of DW-1 does not advance the case of the accused and, rather, weakens it substantially.
28. Further, accused has examined her supervisor of business as DW-3 who sought to rely upon bills Ex.DW3/A(colly) for substantiating the plea of alleged cash payments of Rs.21,50,000/- made to the complainant. However, his testimony fails to inspire confidence and does not withstand judicial scrutiny. During cross-examination, the witness categorically admitted that none of the bills Ex.DW3/A(colly) bear the signatures or any acknowledgment of the complainant. Further, it is deposed that the said bills were neither in his custody nor prepared by him, but kept in the custody of DW-1. Significantly, the witness disowned the authorship of the documents, admitted that the corrections and interpolations therein were not made by him, and further stated that financial transactions of the accused did not fall within the scope of his Digitally signed by CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. ANSHUL Kalpana Chowdhury Page 15 of 18 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:17 +0530 official duties. The relevant extracts from the testimony of DW-3 further fortify this conclusion, wherein he admits that the bills neither bear acknowledgement of the complainant nor were prepared or maintained by him. Such evidence, lacking authenticity and probative value, cannot be relied upon to substantiate the defence of repayment.
29. Further, perusal of loan agreement Ex.CW1/A dated 02.04.2019 clearly enunciated that the alleged entire liability consisting of principal amount together with the assured return, would become payable upon expiry of the stipulated period of 22 months from the date of loan agreement. In this context, the reliance placed by the accused on the bills Ex. DW3/A (colly), which pertain to the years 2019 and 2020, is of no assistance to her case. These documents relate to a period prior to the crystallization of the liability under the loan agreement. Consequently, even if such payments are assumed to have been made, they cannot ipso facto be construed as repayments towards a liability which had not yet become due in terms of the agreement. Moreover, the accused has failed to establish any nexus between the said bills and the alleged discharge of liability under Ex. CW1/A. There is no material on record to show that these payments were made in furtherance of, or appropriated towards, the loan transaction in question. In the absence of any such linkage, the documents remain inconsequential and do not probabilise the defence of repayment. Accordingly, the bills Ex. DW3/A (colly) do not advance the case of the accused and are insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
30. The accused has also failed to produce any material to substantiate her plea that Digitally CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. signed by Kalpana Chowdhury Page 16 of 18 ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:22 +0530 her liability towards the complainant was only of Rs.40,00,000/- that she had already repaid by way of instalments in form of cash. Under Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact to prove it and it is significant to note that the accused has not led any cogent evidence in support of her contentions. In absence of any evidence, the plea of the accused cannot be accepted. It is well established principle of law that 'mere taking plea is no proof of it'. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat,7 where it is held that, the court has to consider the surrounding circumstances and the factual situation of the case before concluding that the onus has shifted upon complainant and the presumption has been rebutted successfully by the accused. Hence, merely making bald assertions is not sufficient to tilt the scale of preponderance of probabilities in the favour of accused. The story of accused, in the absence of any cogent evidence, cannot be taken as a gospel truth, specifically, when the complainant has established his case. The accused has failed to adduce any reliable oral or documentary evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the requirement of second ingredient also stands fulfilled. CONCLUSION
31. To recapitulate the above discussion, accused has failed to establish a probable defence on a standard of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 read with Section 118 of NI Act. The accused, thereby, failed to prove that the cheque was not given in discharge of existing legal debt or liability. In the result of the analysis of the present case, accused Ms. Kalpana 7 2019 SCC OnLine SC 389 Digitally signed by ANSHUL CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Kalpana Chowdhury Page 17 of 18 AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:26 +0530 Chowdhury is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
32. This judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears the signature of the under-
signed. Copy of the judgment be uploaded as per rules. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost as per rules. Convict be now Digitally heard on the quantum of sentence. signed by ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.03.27 16:57:30 Announced in the Open Court on +0530 27th March, 2026 (ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI) JMFC(NI Act)-11 South, Saket Courts, New Delhi CC NI ACT 5148/2021 Jagbir Singh Vs. Kalpana Chowdhury Page 18 of 18