Delhi District Court
Ram Singh Rawat vs Anil Kumar on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NANDINI SHARMA
LD. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT),
DIGITAL COURT-09, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI.
Presided over by: - Ms. Nandini Sharma, DJS
CC No. 24438/2022
Unique case ID No. DLSW020504662022
RAM SINGH RAWAT
S/O LATE SH. SUKHBIR SINGH RAWAT
R/O HARSUKH APT, FLAT NO. 159
PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR 7,
DWARKA, DELHI-110075 ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR S/O SH. ITWARI LAL
R/O H NO. 514 LIG FLATS, HASTSAL,
UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059
...ACCUSED
Complainant Case no. CC NI ACT 24438/2022
CNR No. DLSW02-050466-2022
Title Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar
Name of Complainant Ram Singh Rawat
Name of Accused Anil Kumar
Date of Institution of Complaint 17.08.2022
Date of Final Arguments 04.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement of 20.08.2025
Judgment
Offence Involved Section 138 NI Act
Plea of the Accused Not Guilty
Final order Conviction
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.1 of 20 NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
16:24:00
+0530
-:JUDGMENT:-
1.Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant namely Ram Singh Rawat against the accused, namely Anil Kumar in respect of the dishonour of the cheque in question under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act).
2. Facts, in brief, as alleged in the complaint are that the accused, was in friendly terms with the son of the complainant for almost 25 years and in October, 2018, the accused approached the complainant and his family members asking for a friendly loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs only) for investment in his business. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 33,00,000/- was disbursed by the complainant and his family members to the accused within a span of two years i.e., from October, 2018 to January, 2020 in the bank account of the accused. Further stated that towards the loan amount, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight lakhs only) was disbursed by the complainant from his bank account to the account of the accused on 05.12.2018, which was agreed to be repaid by the accused within two years.
3. To refund the amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 916818 dated 06.04.2022 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards part repayment of the loan that was advanced by the complainant which was dishonoured upon presentation vide return memo dated 02.07.2022 with remarks "Payment Stopped by the Drawer." Subsequently, the complainant sent a legal Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.2 of 20 2025.08.20 16:24:04 +0530 demand notice on 06.07.2022, under Section 138(b) of the NI Act, demanding payment within 15 days, however, the accused failed to make the payment. Resultantly, the present complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. The court took cognizance of the complaint and summoned the accused on 30.11.2022. Subsequently, on 03.10.2023, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 herein after referred to as Cr.P.C) was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and his plea of defence was duly recorded. The accused recorded his pea of defence and admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and filling the particulars on the cheque in question except the name of the payee and denied receiving the legal demand notice.
5. The plea of defence taken by the accused is that "the cheque in question was given as a blank signed security cheque to the complainant towards the repayment of the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) that I had taken from the complainant, and I have already repaid a sum Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) in two installments by way of bank transfer, and I do not have any liability towards the complainant and my blank signed cheque is being misused."
6. Thereafter, an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act was moved on behalf of the accused seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant, which was allowed on the same day and the matter was listed for complainant evidence.
Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.3 of 20 SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:24:09 +0530 On 19.03.2024, the complainant was examined as CW-1 where in support of his case, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. CW-1/1) and relied upon the following documentary evidence:
i. Ex.CW1/A: Bank Statement of the complainant. ii. Ex.CW1/B: Copy of the Cheque bearing no. 916818 dated 06.04.2022.
iii. Ex.CW1/C: Copy of Return Memo dated 02.07.2022. iv. Ex.CW1/D: Copy of legal demand notice dated 06.07.2022. v. Ex.CW1/E: List of documents and copy of contents of email, Copy of legal demand notice in the mail and certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. Thereafter, statement of the accused under section 294 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused admitted the genuineness of the cheque-in-question, return memo and the legal demand notice and the matter was listed for cross examination of the complainant.
8. The Complainant/CW-1 was then cross-examined and there being no other witness for the Complainant, his evidence was closed, and he was discharged.
9. Upon the conclusion of the complainant's evidence, Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C, was recorded on 16.04.2024 wherein all incriminating material was put to him, and he was asked to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. At this stage, the accused stated that "the amount of Rs. Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.4 of 20 SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:24:14 +0530 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) was not credited to the account of the accused as loan but it was credited by the complainant as capital to facilitate introduction of Mr. Ajay Singh Rawan, son of the accused, as a director in the company Selectial india Pvt. Ltd. that was being run by the accused. He further stated that Ajay Singh Rawat is also the director of the company at present and the cheque in question was given as a security cheque as the complainant was constantly pressurizing him for return of the capital amount because his business got adversely affected due to Covid. " The accused then opted to lead defence evidence. On 28.01.2025, the accused was examined as DW-1 and he was cross examined and discharged on 09.04.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
10. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the Counsels for both the parties at length.
11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the accused took a friendly loan from the complainant and accordingly the accused in discharge of his part legal liability, issued the cheque in question to the complainant which got dishonoured on its presentation and despite receiving a legal notice, the accused failed to repay the cheque amount, compelling the complainant to initiate the current proceedings against him. Ld. Counsel further argued that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question as well his liability at different stages of trial and that the accused has neither raised any probable defence nor lead any evidence to prove its case. Further argued that disbursal of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the account of the CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.5 of 20 Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.08.20 16:24:19 +0530 accused has been admitted by the accused himself and complainant is a retired army officer therefore, there is no dispute regarding the financial capacity of the accused. He further submitted that the testimony of the complainant in his cross examination is uncontroverted, and the complainant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment titled as M/S. Kumar Exports v. M/S Sharma Carpets, 2OO9 (2) SCC 5I3.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter and throughout the trial, including his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C, the accused has taken a viable defence.
14. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that the transaction of Rs. 8,00,000/- took place in December 2018 and the cheque in question is dated 06.04.2022, thus the cheque in question was not issued for a legally enforceable debt as the debt in question had become time barred. Further argued that the bank statement of the complainant has not been duly proved and the accused has rebutted the presumption on preponderance of probabilities while the complainant has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record thoroughly.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
16:24:23
+0530
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.6 of 20
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
16. Before analyzing the merits of the case, it is essential to review the legal framework governing cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The dishonour of a cheque, though penalized under Section 138 of the NI Act, does not by itself constitute an offence and for dishonour to be considered an offence, specific ingredients must be fulfilled as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel, [2021] 11 S.C.R. 432, as follows:
i. First ingredient: The drawing of a cheque by person on an account maintained by him with the banker for the payment of any amount of money from that account to another person; ii. Second ingredient: The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability; iii. Third ingredient: Presentation of the cheque to the bank arranged to be paid from that account.
iv. Fourth ingredient: The return of the cheque by the drawee bank unpaid either dure to insufficiency of funds required to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount. v. Fifth ingredient: A notice by the payee or the holder in due course making a demand for the payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank in regard to the return of the cheque; and vi. Sixth ingredient: The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
17. The scheme of NI Act also envisages two presumptions:
Section 118 presumes that every negotiable instrument is made or drawn for consideration unless proven otherwise while Sec- tion 139 presumes that the holder of the cheque received it for discharging a debt or liability unless rebutted. These presump- tions address critical elements necessary for sustaining a con- viction under Section 138 of the Act. A rebuttable presumption CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.7 of 20 Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.08.20 16:24:28 +0530 of law is a legal rule to be applied by the Court in the absence of conflicting evidence (Halsbury, 4th Edition paras 111, 112].
18. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratidranath Banerjee (2001)6 SCC 16 and Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 44, where the Court held that:
"Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption contemplated under section 139 of the NI Act is that of existence of the legal liability, and once this presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by raising a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of proba- bilities." [emphasis supplied]
19. To discharge the burden, the accused can either lead de-
fence evidence and conclusively establish with certainty that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability or prove the non-existence of debt/liability by referring to the par- ticular circumstances of the case. [reliance placed on Basalin- gappa Vs. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983.]
20. As discussed above, the complainant must establish the aforementioned ingredients for the presumption under section 139 NI Act to operate. The onus then shifts to the accused to re- but the presumption by raising a probable defence on the stan- dard of preponderance of probabilities.
21. The accused can be held guilty of the offence under Sec-
tion 138 NI Act only if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Moreover, condi-
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.8 of 20
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
16:24:33
+0530
tions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled in addition to above-mentioned ingredients.
22. In the instant case, the complainant has substantiated the original cheque through Ex-CW1/B, which the accused has not disputed as being drawn from his account and duly signed by him. During the framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. It is also undisputed that the cheque was presented within its validity period and returned unpaid, as indicated by the return memo Ex. CW1/C, with the remarks, "payment stopped by the drawer." This reason falls within the purview of the NI Act. Consequently, the first, third, and fourth ingredients are satisfied in the present case.
23. The dispute remains only as to whether the legal demand notice was served upon the accused and the cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge a legally enforceable debt or a liability towards the complainant.
24. As far as the service of legal demand notice is concerned, the accused in the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C as well as statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has stated that he did not receive the legal demand notice from the complainant asking him to pay the amount of the cheque in question. It is noteworthy that the legal demand notice being Ex.CW1/D was sent to the accused on his mail id [email protected], certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, has CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.9 of 20 Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.08.20 16:24:37 +0530 also been annexed with the complaint, making it admissible as evidence. The accused, in his statement under section 294 Cr.P.C has also admitted the genuineness of the legal demand notice sent through email and, even in his cross examination, he has admitted that the email id to which the legal demand notice was sent, is his personal mail id. he has further stated that the said email id is not functional now i.e., on 19.03.2024, however, he has not contended that the email id was not functional in 2022 when the legal demand notice was sent i.e., on 06.07.2022. The legal demand notice, being properly addressed is presumed to have been delivered to the accused in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the accused has failed to rebut this presumption. Consequently, the mandatory requirement of issuing notice, as stipulated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, is deemed to be fulfilled. Further, it is an admitted fact that payment was not made by the accused within 15 days of the deemed receipt of the legal demand notice. Therefore, the fifth and sixth ingredient stand fulfilled.
25. The point for consideration, now, is whether the cheque in question was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt. As per the decision in Bir Singh v. Mukesh kumar, 2019 (4) SCC 197, once the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question, presumption is raised under section 139 NI Act read with section 118 that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
26. To discharge the aforesaid burden, the accused has led DE and also cross examined CW-1 and based on the same, has ar-
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.10 of 20 Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20 16:24:42 +0530 gued that the complainant has failed to show the financial ca- pacity to advance a loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- as alleged in the complaint. Notably, the complainant has deposed in his cross examination that the total amount of Rs. 33,00,000/- was ar- ranged by his relatives and disbursed to the accused in different instalments. One such instalment was of Rs. 8,00,000/- that was disbursed by the complainant himself through account transfer. The bank statement has been placed on record as an evidence and the same is Ex. CW-1/A. As per the bank statement, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the accused on 05.12.2018. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that complainant has not placed on record any certificate under sec- tion 65 B to prove the authenticity of the bank statement and therefore the same is not admissible. In this regard, it is perti- nent to note that the accused, in his testimony, has also admitted transfer of Rs. 8,00,000/- to his personal bank account. There- fore, the transaction reflected in the bank statement stands cor- roborated with the testimony of the accused as well and the ar- gument of the accused does not find any merit.
27. CW-1 has further admitted in his cross examination that no loan agreement was entered into, neither any proof of the payment of Rs. 33,00,000/- arranged from the relatives has been placed on record. However, it is specified in the complaint that the said amount was transferred by different relatives of the complainant to the accused in a span of two years i.e., from October, 2018 to 13.01.2018 through account transfer. The complainant has also placed on record a copy of the complaint made to the police in August, 2018, however the Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:24:47 +0530 CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.11 of 20 same has not been exhibited/tendered as an evidence, and is therefore, not admissible.
28. As already discussed above, it is settled law that to discharge his burden the accused can either raise doubts in the version of the complainant or bring evidence to rebut the presumption existing in favour of the complainant. In the present case, the accused has also questioned the financial capacity of the complainant by raising questions on the source of the alleged loan. In this regard, considering the testimony of the complainant, it is noteworthy that the complainant is a retired army officer and part payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the account of CW-1 has already been proved. Though the complainant has not produced any document to substantiate the disbursal of the alleged loan of Rs. 33,00,000/, he has testified that the said loan was partly disbursed by his family members through account transfer to the bank account of the accused and in a case where the complainant furnishes a reasonable explanation to the questions raised by the accused, it is imperative for the accused to lead cogent evidence in support of his arguments. In the instant case, to dispute the version of the complainant, the accused has not placed on record his bank statement for the period of 2018 to 2020, leading to an adverse inference in light of section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
29. Reliance is also placed on Tedhi Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Digitally observed: NANDINI signed by NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:24:51 +0530 CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.12 of 20 '10. ... At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.' [emphasis supplied].
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the accused has not been able to demonstrate that the complainant did not have the financial capacity.
31. The accused in his plea of defence has also admitted taking a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant as well as handing over the cheque in question to the complainant and his only defence was that the said cheque was issued as a security cheque. In Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a security cheque is also covered under Section 138 NI Act if it is issued for a legally enforceable debt.
"para 37: A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Nego- tiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he ad- duces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is im- material that the cheque may have been filled in by any person Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:24:56 +0530 CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.13 of 20 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. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evi-
dence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable in- struments including cheques in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in- tended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instru- ments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same." [emphasis sup- plied]
32. As established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC, it is trite law that mere issuance of a cheque as security does not negate the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant and the court must determine whether a legally enforceable debt or liability existed on the date mentioned on the cheque or had arisen at the time of its presentation, Therefore, the defence of the accused that the cheque was given as a security cheque is also not tenable.
33. It is also the defence of the accused that a sum of Rs.
40,000/- was paid to the complainant in two instalments after the issuance of the cheque in question. As per the testimony of the accused in his plea of defence as well as statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the said payment was made before dishonour of the cheque in question. The cheque in question does not bear an endorsement to that effect and the contentious issue in this regard is whether the said payment was made before dishonour of the cheque in question and towards CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.14 of 20 Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:25:01 +0530 discharge of the liability of Rs. 3,00,000/- as admitted by the accused. To decide this issue, the testimony of CW-1 has to be analysed and it is noteworthy that the complainant has also admitted receiving payment of Rs. 40,000/- towards the loan amount, however, as per his testimony the alleged loan is more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. Furthermore, the accused has not taken this objection throughout the course of trial and even during the cross examination of CW-1, the question regarding cheque amount being more than the existing liability was not raised.
34. It is also an admitted fact that Rs. 8,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the accused and the payment of Rs. 40,000/- was made towards the discharge of liability existing in favour of the complainant. In this context, the fact that the loan amount was more than Rs. 3,00,000/-, as alleged by the complainant in his complaint as well as his evidence, becomes relevant as it renders an explanation as to whether the payment of Rs. 40,000/- was made towards discharge of liability of the cheque amount.
35. Moreover, the payment of Rs. 40,000/- by the accused does not conclusively determine that the said payment was made to discharge the liability of Rs. 3,00,000/- especially when the complainant has led evidence to show an existing liability of Rs. 8,00,000/- transferred through bank account. As argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the transfer of Rs. 40,000/- by the accused also leads to an acknowledgment of his liability further strengthening the presumption in favour of the complainant. Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:25:05 +0530 CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.15 of 20
36. As per the testimony of the complainant, the payment was advanced as the parties had shared friendly relations. DW1 has also deposed to a similar effect and has testified that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was not advanced as loan by the complainant but to introduce his son as a director in the company that the accused had started. In this regard, the accused has not furnished any explanation as to whether the amount was a consideration to become a director in the company or was an investment, nor has he brought any agreement/ other relevant document to substantiate his version.
37. The accused has examined Mrs. Sonali Tiwari as DW-2, one of the directors of Selectial India Pvt. Ltd. 9 (a company run by the accused). DW-2 has also deposed that the complainant had invested some money in their company to introduce his son namely, Ajay Singh Rawat as a director, however, DW-2 has admitted that there is nothing in writing to substantiate the claim of the accused. DW-2 has also admitted that she was only managing the staff of the accused company and the entire records were being looked after by the accused himself. Moreover, DW-2 has admitted that her testimony is inspired by the version of the accused told to her by the accused himself, therefore, DW-2 is not an independent witness in this case and her testimony cannot be relied upon to determine the issue regarding existence of liability. Consequently, I find the testimony of the accused suffers from material contradictions and in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate his defence, the presumption of guilt cannot be said to be rebutted Digitally signed by even on preponderance of probabilities. NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:25:11 +0530 CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.16 of 20
38. Coming to the argument of the accused that the debt in question is a time barred debt, it is pertinent to note that as per the bank statement placed on record, the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the accused on 05.12.2018 and the cheque in question was issued on 06.04.2022. The settled position of law in this regard is that offence of section 138 NI Act is attracted when the cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the complainant had admitted that the loan was advanced to the accused in 05.12.2018 as shown in the bank statement, and the cheque was issued in April 2022. The point of contention in the complaint has been the loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- advanced by the complainant on 05.08.2018. it is the argument of the accused that by the time the cheque was issued, the debt was barred by limitation since there was no valid acknowledgement of the liability within the period of limitation. In this regard, it is relevant to invoke the provision under Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act is which provides that "any agreement without consideration is a valid agreement if it is made in writing and signed by the person or his agent for the payment of a debt which might be a time barred debt."
39. At this stage, reliance is placed on the judgement Rajeev Kumar vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. (2024) CRL.L.P. 212/2021 & CRL.M.A. 20429/2021, where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that furnishing of a cheque of a time- barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself by a fresh Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:25:27 +0530 CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.17 of 20 agreement through the deeming provision under section 25(3) of ICA.
"The furnishing of a cheque of a time-barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself by a fresh agreement through the deeming provision under section 25(3) of ICA. The original debt therefore, through section 25(3) of the ICA, becomes legally enforceable to the extent of the amount the cheque has been given. This resonates also with practical considerations. Persons who have chosen to escape liability, can draw a cheque, in order to clear an earlier debt upon persuasion by the creditor. By the act of drawing a cheque, the promisor i.e. the drawer, is effectively stating that he has a liability to pay the drawee. Drawing of the cheque in itself, is acknowledgment of a debt or liability. It is the resurrection or the revival of the prior debt which would trigger the provisions under section 138 of NI Act. To deny a complainant/drawee of invoking the penal provisions under section 138 of NI Act, despite the categorical premise of section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act recognizing a fresh agreement to pay, would be an unfortunate disentitlement." [emphasis supplied].
40. Thus, the issuance of the cheque by the accused operates as a fresh promise to discharge a debt which had otherwise become time-barred, thereby rendering it legally enforceable. Such issuance also amounts to an acknowledgment of liability, attracting the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, unless the contrary is established. The execution of cheque has already been admitted by the accused, and therefore, in light of the provision under section 25 (3) ICA and the judgment discussed above, the defence of the accused that the cheque in question was issued for a time barred debt, is not tenable.
41. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I am of the opinion that the accused has failed to discharge his burden and has not been able to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant.
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.18 of 20 Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20 16:25:33 +0530 Though an attempt has been made to question the financial capacity of the complainant and certain contradictions/inconsistencies have also been pointed out in the case of the complainant, none of the inconsistencies appear to be of a material character. Further on a detailed analysis, the case of the complainant inspires the confidence of this court and has not been rebutted on the basis of any legally admissible evidence. Minor contradictions or trivial inconsistencies do not constitute a sufficient ground to disbelieve an otherwise coherent case set forth by the complainant. It is also the settled law that a consistent chain of evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of mere suspicion and in the instant case the evidence on record is cogent and unerringly points to only one conclusion i.e., the guilt of the accused.
42. Considering the foregoing facts, the arguments advanced by the parties, the appreciation of evidence, and the established legal principles, this Court finds that the accused has failed to rebut the mandatory presumption under Section 139 NI Act, even on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, while the complainant has succeeded in proving his case beyond reasonable doubt.
43. Accordingly, the accused, Anil Kumar, is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, with respect to the cheque in question in the present case.
44. The convict be now heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
16:25:38
+0530
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.19 of 20
Judgment pronounced in open court
today i.e., on 20.08.2025.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI
SHARMA
NANDINI Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
16:25:43
+0530
(NANDINI SHARMA)
JMFC (138-NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-09,
SOUTH-WEST/DWARKA/NEW DELHI
20.08.2025
Note: This judgment contains 20 pages and each page
bears my digital signatures.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
16:25:47 +0530
(NANDINI SHARMA)
JMFC (138-NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-09,
SOUTH-WEST/DWARKA/NEW DELHI
20.08.2025
CC NI ACT 24438/2022 Ram Singh Rawat v. Anil Kumar Page no.20 of 20