Delhi District Court
Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Kumar Verma on 14 May, 2025
In The Court of Sh. Divyam Lila, Municipal Magistrate, East, Delhi
-:Judgement:-
CT Case 1978/2018
DLET-020033042018
Presented on : 07-05-2018
Registered on : 08-05-2018
Decided on : 14-05-2025
Duration : 7 years, 0 months, 7 days
(Complainant): Sh. Mahipal Singh
R/O Genjha Tilpatbad, Sector-93, Noida,
Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.
Versus
(Accused): Vinod Kumar Verma
R/O Village-Chhalera, Gali No. 2, Sector-44, Noida
Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.
Advocate appearing for Complainant: Sh.
DIVYAM
Advocate appearing for Accused: Sh. Deepak Thukral LILA
Offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Digitally signed by
DIVYAM LILA
Final Order : Acquittal under Section 138 NI Act Location: Court Room
no. 12, KKD, East,
Delhi
-:Index of Judgment:- Date: 2025.05.14
17:21:23 +0530
1.Introduction:-.................................................................................................. 2
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-................................................................................. 2
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused.............................3
4. Issues for Determination:............................................................................... 3
5. Evidence on Record........................................................................................ 3
6. Legal Position:.................................................................................................5
7. Arguments on behalf of the parties:..............................................................8
8. Analysis and Findings:................................................................................. 10
10. Conclusion and Reason for decision:........................................................ 18
11. Order:...........................................................................................................19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
1. Introduction:-
a. This judgment adjudicates a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") by the complainant against the accused for the alleged dishonour of a cheque in the complaint case based on the friendly/ trust based loan.
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-
a. The complainant alleges that his agricultural land was acquired by the Noida Authority, Uttar Pradesh, and he received compensation. The accused, known to the complainant for 15-16 years due to residing in a nearby village, allegedly approached him for a friendly, interest-free loan of Rs. 23,64,400/- for business purposes, citing knowledge of the compensation. The complainant claims to have paid this amount in cash, and the case of the complainant is that the accused issued a cheque to pay the same however the same was returned dishonoured.
b. The matter pertains to the cheque bearing No. 002458 dated 31.01.2018 for Rs. 23,64,400/-, drawn on RBL Bank, in favor of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as "cheque in question").
The cheque was presented on 12.03.2018 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Preet Vihar, Delhi, but was dishonoured with the remark "Payment Stopped" vide return memo dated 15.03.2018. A legal demand notice dated 09.04.2018 was served via registered post, but the accused failed to make payment within the statutory period, leading to the present complaint. The cognizance in the present matter was taken, and the accused was summoned for the purpose of trial.
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 2/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused a. The accused was served notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he pleaded "not guilty".
b. The accused denied issuing the cheque to the complainant for the payment of any friendly loan, and stated in his defense that the cheque was given for the security for purchasing a plot bearing no. GT 108 A / sector 135 Noida, but since the complainant sold the said plot to someone else, he got the cheque stopped from the bank. He also stated that the property number has been mentioned behind the cheque in question.
c. The accused had admitted that the cheque pertained to his account, having his signature, admitted giving the cheque but for the security for the transaction.
4. Issues for Determination:
a. The cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.?
b. The cheque was presented within the period of validity of three months?.
c. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.? d. A legal notice was duly served.?
e. The accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period. f. The accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.?
5. Evidence on Record a. Complainant's Evidence: List of Documents Relied and Filed by Complainant (Sh. Mahipal Singh):
i. Ex. CW-1/A: Bank statement showing cash withdrawals by the complainant, purportedly to advance the loan.
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 3/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi ii. Ex. CW-1/B: Original Cheque No. 002458 dated 31.01.2018 for Rs. 23,64,400/-, issued by the accused, drawn on RBL Bank.
iii. Ex. CW-1/C: Bank Return Memo dated 15.03.2018, indicating dishonour of Cheque No. 002458 with remark "Payment Stopped."
iv. Ex. CW-1/D: Legal Demand Notice dated 09.04.2018, sent to the accused demanding payment.
v. Ex. CW-1/E: Postal receipt for the legal notice sent via registered post.
vi. Ex. CW-1/DX1: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 11.05.2016, executed by the complainant in favor of Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary. vii. In the cross-examination of CW-1 (complainant), he confirmed a 15-16 year friendly relationship with the accused, involving mutual home visits. He stated the loan was advanced in five cash installments from 24.02.2014 to 20.03.2015, totaling Rs. 23,64,400/-, without written agreements or receipts. He stated withdrawing Rs.
14,20,000/- from his bank account and contributing Rs. 9,44,400/- from personal savings, but could not recall exact installment dates or amounts beyond the first (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and last two (Rs. 5,00,000/- each). He claimed to have advanced Rs. 26,00,000/- but accepted a cheque for Rs. 23,64,400/- based on the accused's account balance. He admitted not filing Income Tax Returns and not mentioning the Rs. 9,44,400/- cash payment in his legal notice, complaint, or affidavit. He confirmed owning Plot No. GT-108/145, Noida (284 sq. m), sold on 16.10.2017, before CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 4/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi the cheque's date (31.01.2018). He denied the cheque was for a property deal and could not explain the endorsement on its back, stating he did not turn over the cheque before presentation.
b. Statement of Accused under Sec 313 CrPC: The accused admitted issuing the cheque in an undated condition with his signature but denied taking any loan. He claimed the cheque was issued as security for a property transaction involving Plot No. GT-108, Sector 145, Noida, and was stopped because the complainant sold the plot to another party with ill intentions. He admitted receiving the legal notice dated 09.04.2018 but did not reply. He clarified that the GPA (Ex. CW-1/DX1) was unrelated to the plot in question, referring to a different property. The accused denied any loan transaction, stating his relationship with the complainant was purely commercial, limited to the plot deal. He chose not to lead defense evidence. Hence the matter was listed for the final arguments directly.
6. Legal Position:
a. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the following essential elements must be satisfied as per the judgement in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 954 ,both in the complaint and the evidence presented by the complainant:
i. Drawing of the Cheque: The accused must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by them, for the payment of a legally enforceable debt or liability to another person. ii. Timely Presentation: The cheque must be presented to the bank for payment within three months from the date on CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 5/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi which it was drawn, or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
iii. Dishonour of the Cheque: The cheque must be dishonoured by the bank due to either insufficient funds in the account or because the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.
iv. Notice of Demand: The payee or holder of the cheque must issue a written demand for payment to the drawer, within 30 days of receiving information from the bank regarding the dishonour.
v. Failure to Pay: The drawer must fail to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice of demand.
b. Additionally, the provisions of Sections 139 and 118 of the Act further strengthen the case for the complainant. Section 139 creates a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, mandating that the court shall presume, unless proven otherwise, that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability. Section 118, on the other hand, provides that there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument, including a cheque, was made for consideration, and that it was transferred for consideration. c. In the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418;, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 imposes a rebuttable presumption in favour of the complainant, establishing that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused has the opportunity to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting this presumption is based on the preponderance of probabilities.
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 6/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi d. The court further held that it is not mandatory for the accused to enter the witness box to prove their defence. They may rely on the evidence presented by the complainant or any other available materials. The onus to rebut the presumption lies on the accused, but it is important to note that this is an evidentiary burden, not a persuasive one.
e. Thus, Section 138 operates on the principle of reverse onus of proof: once the complainant proves the essential elements of dishonour, the burden shifts to the accused to raise a plausible defence. The presumption of guilt is strong, but not irrebuttable, and the accused is entitled to challenge it through a preponderance of evidence.
f. In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is to be examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumption which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused again on the complainant. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, the accused can either prove the non−existence of the consideration and debt by direct evidence or by bringing on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt either did not exist or their non−existence was so probable that a prudent man may act upon the plea that they did not exist. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 7/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.
7. Arguments on behalf of the parties:
a. Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the Complainant:
i. The parties had argued orally at length and had also filed the written arguments separately.
ii. Proven Payment: The complainant proved the loan payment through cash withdrawals (Ex. CW-1/A), which the accused did not challenge. The accused also did not dispute the complainant's financial capacity to advance the loan. iii. Unrebutted Presumption: The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, as he led no defense evidence and provided no credible explanation for the cheque's issuance beyond a bare denial.
iv. Friendly Relationship: The complainant's consistent testimony about a 15-16 year friendly relationship with the accused supports the plausibility of an oral loan agreement. v. Statutory Compliance: The cheque's dishonour, service of notice, and non-payment within 15 days fulfill all requirements of Section 138 NI Act.
vi. Property Identification: The claim of the accused is not proper as the property GT 108/145 was already sold and the GPA deed was reflecting the said transaction. vii. Explanation by the complainant: The complainant explained the nature of loan clearly, also explained the amount payment in bank and cash clearly and his testimony was consistent and clear.
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 8/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi viii. Flimsy defense of the accused: The accused did not prove any document to support his claim of failed property transaction, no evidence was led and no witness was produced to support the same.
b. Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the Complainant:
i. The parties had argued orally at length and had also filed the written arguments separately.
ii. Security Cheque for Property Deal: The cheque was issued as security for a property transaction (Plot No. GT-108/145, Noida) in 2017, as evidenced by an endorsement on its back.
The complainant's sale of the plot to another party in 2017 justified stopping payment.
iii. Absence of Loan Documentation: No written agreement or receipt exists for the alleged loan, and the complainant's claim of cash payments is improbable, as a prudent person would use bank transfers for such a large amount.
iv. Inconsistent Bank Withdrawals: The complainant's bank withdrawals (Rs. 14,20,000/-) do not match the cheque amount (Rs. 23,64,400/-), and the claim of Rs. 9,44,400/- from savings was not disclosed earlier, indicating fabrication.
v. Contradictory Testimony: The complainant's claim of lending Rs. 26,00,000/- contradicts his affidavit (Rs. 23,64,400/-), and he could not recall exact loan dates or explain the cheque's endorsement, undermining his credibility.
vi. Property Deal Evidence: The complainant admitted owning Plot No. GT-108/145, sold in 2017, and the GPA (Ex.
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 9/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi CW-1/DX1) does not mention this plot, supporting the accused's claim of a property deal.
vii. Financial Capacity Doubts: The complainant's failure to file ITR raises doubts about his ability to lend Rs. 23,64,400/- in cash.
8. Analysis and Findings:
a. Issue 1 - Issuance of Cheque: This ingredient pertains to the issuance of the cheque in question itself. The Accused, in his notice of accusation has admitted his signature on the cheque in question and that the cheque has been drawn on the account of the Accused himself. The accused has also admitted issuance of the cheque to the complainant as a security but for a separate transaction of property purchase, and denied issuing the same for the payment of friendly loan alleged. The plea of the accused that the date / particulars of the cheque in question was not filled by him is of no help; as the signature of the accused on the cheque is not disputed. Reliance can be placed, at this juncture, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Anr. (2008) 102DRJ147, held: "Section 20 NI Act talks of "inchoate stamped instruments" and states that if a person signs and delivers a paper stamped in accordance with the law and "either wholly blank or have written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument" such person thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof "to make or complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp." "A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 10/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the pur- poses of Section 87 NI Act. What is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer." Further, in Bir singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 it was held that:-"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. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted." Hence, In the present case, Prima facie the ingredient that the cheque was issued to the complainant has been satisfied as the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and the account being maintained by him. Having admitted the basic ingredient, the presumption is drawn against the accused and now the accused would have to prove that the cheque in question was not issued by him for discharge of the liability; by way of rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. Whether the accused was able to successfully rebut the adverse presumption is dealt in detail in the issue no. 6; However, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant and the presumption of valid debt is drawn against the accused.
b. Issue 2 - Presentation within Validity: This ingredient stands satisfied on a bare perusal of the cheque in question and the return memo being presented within the period of validity. The cheque is also not dishonoured with the remark "instrument stale"; as the cheque has been dishonoured with a return memo noting the reason for return as "Stop Payment". The defence has led no evidence to CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 11/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi contradict the same and hence, this ingredient stands fulfilled as against the accused. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been proved to be dishonoured within the period of validity.
c. Issue 3 - Dishonour of Cheque: The bank return memo records state that the cheque in question has been returned dishonoured for the reason "Stop Payment". The defence has led no evidence to contradict the same and hence, this ingredient also stands satisfied as against the Accused. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been proved to be dishonoured.
d. Issue 4 - Legal Notice: Service of the legal notice is the legal fiction which constitutes the major ingredient of the offence u/s-138 NI Act. The objective of serving legal demand notice to the Accused before filing the case is to allow the accused to make the payment. As regards the service of legal demand notice, the Complainant has sent the same to the accused. That the Accused has in his notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C denied receiving the legal demand notice, and in the statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Sec-281 Cr.P.C, The accused accepted receiving the legal notice but admitted not filing any reply to the same. The accused has also not led any positive evidence to prove that the legal notice was not served on him, nor any evidence to prove that the address on the legal notice is incorrect. The Sec. 27 of the general clauses act provides for the presumption for the service. At this stage, reliance can be placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007 (6) SCC 555 while discussing the true intent behind the service of legal demand notice as a precursor to the CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 12/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi launch of prosecution held that the service of summons of the court is opportunity enough for the accused to pay the cheque amount and evade prosecution and any accused who fails to pay the amount within 15 days of the service of summons, clearly cannot protect himself/herself behind the technical demand of non-service of legal notice. Thus, in the present case, in absence of any evidence against the presumption of service and admission of the accused with respect to receiving the legal notice, this issue no. 4 is also decided in favour of the complainant and the service of legal notice has been proved.
e. Issue 5 - Non-Payment within 15 Days: In the present case, after the issue no. 4 is against the accused, the case of the accused is that the complainant has misused the cheque in question, which was given as security for the separate failed property transactions taken by the accused from the complainant. The case of the accused is not for any payments made after the legal notice. Hence, it is an admitted position that no payment for the cheque in question was made and thus this ingredient of non-payment within 15 days also stands satisfied. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been proved to be not paid by the accused despite service of notice.
9. Issue 6 : Defence of the Accused and Rebuttal of Presumption: The above ingredients being satisfied, the court would have to look at the defence brought out by the accused by way of cross examination of the complainant's evidence and the rebuttal of presumption. In the present case, the accused had made following attempts towards rebuttal of the statutory presumption against him; and with the following observations, it CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 13/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi is held that the issue no. 6 is decided against the complainant and in favour of the accused:
a. Lack of Loan Documentation: The complainant's claim of a Rs. 23,64,400/- loan relies solely on an oral agreement, with no written contract, receipt, or acknowledgment. As a farmer conducting business in Delhi, the complainant's reliance on cash payments without documentation for such a large sum is highly improbable in conjunction with acute lack of written documents to record the alleged loan. The absence of any written record, despite a 15-16 year relationship, undermines the loan's credibility, as a prudent person would secure such a transaction with evidence, especially in a commercial context. Further, the accused had clearly denied the existence of any loan transaction, and the complainant did not produce any witness to corroborate his version of payment being given.
b. Inconsistent Bank Withdrawals: The bank statement (Ex. CW-1/A) shows withdrawals of Rs. 14,20,000/-, significantly less than the cheque amount of Rs. 23,64,400/-. The complainant's claim of contributing Rs. 9,44,400/- from personal savings was not mentioned in his legal notice, complaint, or affidavit, only surfacing during cross-examination. This late disclosure, coupled with his failure to produce additional bank passbooks as promised, casts serious doubt on the loan's existence. The discrepancy between withdrawals and the cheque amount further weakens his case. Further, the case of the complainant is that he had withdrawn the said money from the bank account only to give the same to the accused as a loan as cash seemed highly improbable for following reasons:
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 14/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi i. If the complainant had the financial capacity to give a loan of such a big amount, he could have withdrawn the same amount in one time and given the same to the accused.The complainant did not explain the requirement of giving loan in multiple installments.
ii. The complainant did not explain the requirement of giving the loan in cash, when the complainant had the money in a bank account and the money could have been transferred in the account of the accused for the purpose of business loan, establishing a record; however the complainant did not do so; and the conduct of the complainant does not align with the conduct of prudent person in normal course. iii. The complainant did not examine any independent witness to prove the said amount being given in cash.
c. Contradictory Loan Amount Testimony: The complainant's claim of lending Rs. 26,00,000/- contradicts his affidavit, legal notice, and the cheque amount (Rs. 23,64,400/-). His explanation that the cheque reflected the accused's account balance is vague and unsupported by evidence. This inconsistency, not clarified during cross-examination, suggests fabrication or confusion, eroding the reliability of his testimony further. d. Probable Defense of Property Deal: The accused consistently maintained that the cheque was issued as security for a property transaction (Plot No. GT-108/145, Noida) in 2017, supported by an endorsement on the cheque's back. The complainant admitted owning this plot and selling it on 16.10.2017, before the cheque's date 31.01.2018. His inability to explain the endorsement or confirm its absence (stating he did not turn over the cheque) strengthens the accused's defense. The timing of the sale aligns CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 15/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi with the accused's claim that he stopped payment due to the complainant's actions, creating a plausible alternative narrative. e. Irrelevant GPA Evidence: The complainant's GPA (Ex. CW-1/DX1) dated 11.05.2016 does not mention Plot No. GT-108/145 and refers to a property of 367 sq. m, and does not mention any property 284 sq. m, contradicting his denial of a property deal. The complainant could not explain how the GPA was related to the plot GT 108/145, when admittedly the area of the plot did not correspond to the area of plot in GPA. The identity of the plot also remained unproven. This document, introduced to counter the accused's defense, instead supports the accused's claim that the cheque was linked to a separate transaction, not a loan. f. Improbable Conduct of Complainant: The complainant's failure to recall exact installment dates or amounts (beyond the first and last) and his reliance on cash payments without bank transfers or receipts are inconsistent with prudent behavior. His claim of a 1.5-year repayment term lacks specificity. Moreover, his failure to pursue legal action (e.g., civil suit or police complaint) for non-repayment from 2015 to 2018, despite alleged repeated demands, is surprising for someone claiming a significant financial loss.
g. Accused's Consistent Defense: The accused's admission of issuing the cheque and stopping payment aligns with his claim of a failed property deal due to the complainant's sale of the plot. His decision not to lead defense evidence does not negate the probable defense raised through cross-examination, as permitted in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418. The endorsement on the cheque and the complainant's sale of the plot corroborate his version.
CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 16/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi h. Limited Weight of Friendly Relationship: While the complainant established a 15-16 year relationship, his vague knowledge of the accused's family (e.g., uncertainty about the number of children) and reliance on an oral agreement for a large loan weaken its plausibility. A friendly relationship does not inherently validate an undocumented loan of this magnitude in a commercial context, coupled with above mentioned inconsistencies the friendly loan becomes improbable.
i. Financial Capacity Doubts: The complainant's failure to file ITR raises questions about his financial capacity to lend Rs. 23,64,400/- in cash, especially without corroborative evidence of savings or income beyond the Noida Authority compensation. His claim of maintaining Rs. 9,44,400/- in cash savings is unsubstantiated. j. Benefit of Doubt: The accused's defense, supported by the complainant's inconsistencies, the cheque's endorsement, and the plot's sale, creates sufficient doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt. As per Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, the accused need only raise a probable defense, not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's failure to provide cogent evidence shifts the onus back to him, which he has not discharged. The accused's defense that the cheque was issued as security for a property deal, not a loan, is probable and consistent, supported by the complainant's sale of Plot No. GT-108/145, the cheque's endorsement, and the lack of loan documentation. The complainant's inconsistent testimony, incomplete financial records, and improbable conduct fail to establish the debt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 17/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi NI Act, entitling him to acquittal. This issue is decided in favor of the accused.
10.Conclusion and Reason for decision:
a. The Issue no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the complainant and the presumption was drawn against the accused. The fate of the complainant's case hinged on the ability of the accused to rebut the presumptions drawn against him, and as decided above, the issue no. 6 is decided against the complainant, and in favour of the accused; thereby deciding that the accused was successfully able to rebut the presumption drawn against him. b. The complainant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 23,64,400/-. The absence of loan documentation, inconsistent bank withdrawals, contradictory statements about the loan amount, and the complainant's sale of Plot No. GT-108/145 before the cheque's date, coupled with the unexplained endorsement on the cheque, create significant doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
c. As held in the judgement of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 - it is important to underscore the established canon of criminal law that in order to pass a conviction in a criminal case, the accused "must be" guilty and not merely "may be" guilty. The mental distance between "may be" to "must be" guilty is a long one and must be travelled not on surmises and conjectures, but by cogent evidence. In this case, the accused has successfully created a doubt in the story of the complainant in respect of the fact that the cheque in question was issued to return CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 18/ 19 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi the friendly loan. And, as per the settled law, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The material on record does not suggest that the accused "must be" guilty whichever way one looks at it. In view of the above discussions, the present case appears to be a fit case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.
11.Order:
a. The accused Sh. Vinod Verma is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 NI Act.
b. The bail bonds of the accused and the sureties (in any), that are already filed in the court for the purpose of bail, are retained for the purpose of section 437 A Cr.P.C for the period of six months from today.
c. The signed copy of the judgement be uploaded on the CIS immediately.
d. Let the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. e. Pronounced in open court and in presence of both the parties/ or their Counsels. Digitally signed by DIVYAM LILA Location: (DIVYAM LILA) DIVYAM Court Room LILA no. 12, KKD, East, Delhi Municipal Magistrate, East District Date:
2025.05.14 Date: 14.05.2025 17:21:35 +0530 Karkardooma Court/Delhi ___________________________end of the document_____________________ CT Case no 1978/2018 Mahipal Singh vs Vinod Verma page 19/ 19