Delhi District Court
Kamlesh Verma vs Krishan Singh on 26 September, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SETHI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT- 02),
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Ms. Kamlesh Verma
W/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o CB-33D, Janta Flats
Hari Nagar, New Delhi - 110064
Place of work at:
G-68, Dharam Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110041 ..... Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Krishan Singh
R/o B-4/4, DDU Complex,
Opposite DDU Hospital,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi - 110064 ..... Accused
Complaint Case number : 6131/2016
Date of Institution of Complaint : 21.12.2013
Offence Complained of : Section 138 NI Act
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Final order : Conviction
Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.09.26
16:42:04
Date of Decision : 26.09.2025
+0530
1
CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by Ms. Kamlesh Verma, (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'), against Sh. Krishan Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') for dishonour of cheque bearing number 200551, dated 31.10.2013, for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Najafgarh Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as 'cheque in question').
A. BRIEF FACTS:-
2. (a) The complainant has alleged that the accused had good family relations with her, who had approached her on 20.04.2013 for a friendly loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- for a period of 06 months. It is alleged that the complainant advanced the said loan to the accused on 27.04.2013 at her house, in the presence of her son, Sh. Gaurav Verma. It is further alleged that for the discharge of his liability, the accused had issued the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) to the complainant at the time of taking the loan and the same was dishonoured upon presentation, vide return memo dated 02.11.2013 (Ex. CW- 1/B) with remarks "Funds Insufficient".
(b) Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 18.11.2013 (Ex.CW-1/C) to the accused through her Counsel. However, the accused allegedly failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, despite such notice, and therefore, the present complaint has been filed.
3. Per contra, the stance of the accused is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant, for the repayment of which the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was issued to her. The accused has admitted his SURABHI SETHI signatures on the cheque in question, however, he has alleged that the remaining Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:42:10 +0530 2 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh particulars of the cheque were not filled by him. The accused has further alleged that the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) has been misused by the complainant.
B. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE AND NOTICE:-
4. At the stage of pre-summoning evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW-1/1. The complainant relied upon documents Ex. CW-1/A to Ex. CW-1/I in his pre- summoning evidence. Upon finding a prima facie case, the accused was summoned to face trial vide order dated 02.01.2014. On entering appearance, the accused was served with the notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') on 21.03.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the accused was allowed to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses, if any, vide the order of even date.
C. COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE:-
5. During the trial, the complainant was duly examined, cross-examined and discharged. The following oral and documentary evidence was led by the complainant to prove her case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
ORAL EVIDENCE CW-1 Ms. Kamlesh Verma (tendered her evidence by way of affidavit) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. CW-1/A Cheque bearing no. 200551 dated 31.10.2013 for Rs. 15,00,000/-
SURABHI
SETHI
Digitally signed
by SURABHI
SETHI
Date:
2025.09.26
16:42:15 +0530
3
CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh
Ex. CW-1/B Return memo dated 02.11.2013
Ex. CW-1/C Legal Demand Notice dated 18.11.2013
Ex. CW-1/D Original Postal Receipt
Ex. CW-1/E Original Courier Receipt
Ex. CW-1/F Reply to the Legal Demand Notice
Ex. CW-1/G Postal Envelope
Ex. CW-1/H and Ex. CW-1/I Tracking report
Ex. CW-3/A (OSR) Election I-Card of CW-3
Ex. CW-3/B (OSR) Death Certificate of the husband of CW-3
D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
6. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded without oath.
E. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
7. Thereafter, the accused opted to lead defence evidence. The following oral and documentary evidence was led on behalf of the accused in support of his defence.
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW-1 Sh. Krishan Singh
DW-2 Smt. Suresh
DW-3 Sh. Gulshan Kumar
DW-5 Sh. Sushant Shekhar, Branch Manager, SURABHI
SETHI
Canara Bank (Earlier Syndicate Bank), Digitally signed
by SURABHI
SETHI
Tilak Nagar, Delhi. Date: 2025.09.26
16:42:21 +0530
4
CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. DW-5/1 (OSR) Cheque Book Issue Register with effect
from 07.06.2010 to 26.08.2013
Ex. DW-5/2 (OSR) Employee ID of DW-5
8. The matter was then listed for final arguments. I have heard the learned counsels on both the sides and have perused the file and given my thoughtful consideration to the material on record.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has failed to lead any probable defence to rebut the presumptions under Section 139 and Section 118(a) of NI Act. Accordingly, he has argued that the accused be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138, NI Act.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the accused. He has argued that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant and that the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was issued to her for the repayment of the said loan. He has further argued that the particulars of the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) were not filled by the accused and that the cheque has been misused by the complainant. He has further argued that the complainant has failed to disclose how the funds for advancing the alleged loan were arranged by her. Lastly, he has argued that the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was issued to the accused by his bank after the date on which the complainant has alleged the same cheque to have been handed over to her and hence, the same could not have been given to the complainant on the alleged date. Accordingly, SURABHI he has argued that the accused owes no liability towards the complainant and be SETHI Digitally signed acquitted of the offence under Section 138, NI Act. by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:42:26 +0530 5 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh F. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
11. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is essential to examine the law governing the offence under Section 138, NI Act. Bare reading of the provision shows that in order to establish the offence under Section 138, NI Act, the complainant must establish the following ingredients:
i. Cheque is drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
ii. The debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is legally enforceable.
iii. Said cheque is returned unpaid by the bank either due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused to honour the cheque or because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank.
iv. The cheque must have been presented to the bank within a period of 03 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.
v. A demand of the said amount is made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within 30 days of the receipt of information of dishonour from the bank.
vi. Drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount to the payee or holder in due course of cheque within 15 days of said notice.
12. In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142, NI Act must be fulfilled by the complainant. Therefore, in a complaint under Section 138, NI Act, the complainant is required to prove that the cheque was drawn by the drawer (accused) for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or SURABHI SETHI other liability. Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date:
2025.09.26 16:42:30 +0530 6 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh
13. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the accused, until proven guilty. Thus, the initial burden to establish the guilt of the accused lies upon the complainant. However, in the trial of an offence under Section 138, NI Act, once the accused admits his signatures on the cheque in question, certain presumptions arise in favour of the complainant under the scheme of the Act. These presumptions result in shifting of onus on the accused. Here, it is apposite to refer to Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act. Section 118(a) of the NI Act provides that unless the contrary is proved, a drawn up negotiable instrument, if accepted, has to be presumed to be for consideration. Further, Section 139 of the NI Act provides that unless the contrary is proved, the holder of a cheque shall be presumed to have received the same in discharge of any debt or other liability. Therefore, these two provisions raise a rebuttable presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and was issued by the accused in discharge of a debt or other liability.
14. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindra Nath Bannerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, that it is obligatory on the part of the court to raise presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act in every case where factual basis for raising of the presumption has been established. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Hon'ble Apex Court held that where the signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised regarding the existence of 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.
SURABHI SETHI
15. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, the standard Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:42:36 +0530 of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities, by which the accused is liable to raise a probable defence. To rebut the presumption, it is open to the accused 7 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh to rely on evidence led by him/her or to rely on the materials submitted by the complainant or the circumstances upon which the parties rely in order to raise a probable defence (Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418). Further, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513 that to rebut the statutory presumption, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration or debt did not exist, or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man, under the circumstances of the case, would act upon the plea that they did not exist.
16. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is the case of the complainant that she had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the accused on 27.04.2013 for a period of 06 months, for the repayment of which, the accused has issued the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) in her favour. The accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. It is also not in dispute that the cheque in question was presented within the period of its validity and was dishonoured on presentation. The accused has admitted the receipt of legal notice from the complainant in the notice under Section 251, Cr.P.C. framed against him.
17. The present complaint has been filed within the period of limitation. It is thus clear that factual basis for raising the presumption u/s 118(a) NI Act and Section 139 NI Act is established in the present case. Accordingly, the mandatory presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act are raised that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
18. Further, Section 118(g), NI Act also lays down a presumption in favour of the complainant. It states that the holder of the cheque is presumed to be the holder in due course. Hence, the onus now shifts to the accused to rebut the SURABHI SETHI presumptions and to establish a probable defence that the cheque in question Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:42:42 +0530 8 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh (Ex. CW-1/A) was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt/ liability.
19. The defence of the accused is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant and for the repayment of the said loan, he had issued the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) to her, which is alleged to have been misused by her. In order to substantiate his defence, the accused has cross-examined the complainant. In support of his defence, the accused has tried to establish that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the alleged loan to him. It has been brought on record through the cross-examination of the complainant that the funds for advancing the alleged loan were arranged from her daughter, Ms. Neeru, who had received her share from her in-laws, after the demise of her husband. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has remained uncontroverted in her testimony, inasmuch as she has stated that the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was issued to her by the accused on the same day when the loan was advanced to him. The complainant has also stated during her cross- examination that the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was signed by the accused in her presence, however, the particulars of the same were not filled in her presence.
20. Furthermore, the case of the complainant has also been supported by her son, Sh. Gaurav Verma, examined as CW-2. It has been deposed by CW-2 in his testimony that his mother, the complainant, had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the accused on 27.04.2013, at their place of work in Najafgarh, in his presence. This corroborates the same fact as averred in the complaint by the complainant. CW-2 has further deposed that Rs. 12,00,000/-, out of the entire loan amount, was given to the complainant by his sister, Ms. Neeru Verma, who had received her share from the sale proceeds of the ancestral property of her SURABHI SETHI deceased husband, Sh. Kewal. This further lends credence to the case of the Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date:
2025.09.26 complainant, as the same fact was also stated by the complainant during her 16:42:47 +0530 9 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh cross-examination, while explaining how the funds were arranged by her for advancing the alleged loan. CW-2 also remained unrebutted during his cross- examination. The accused was unsuccessful in discrediting the testimony of the said witness and only tried to establish his defence by way of bald suggestions that he had taken a loan of only Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant and not the alleged loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
21. The daughter of the complainant, Ms. Neeru Verma has also been examined as a complainant witness, CW-3. The said witness has also corroborated the testimonies of the complainant and CW-2, inasmuch as she has deposed that the ancestral property of her deceased husband, bearing number RZ-7K, Gali No.3, Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi was sold and that she received a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- in cash from her mother-in-law in March 2013, against the share of her deceased husband. It is interesting to note that CW-2 has correctly stated the address of the ancestral property of the husband of CW-3 in his testimony. CW-3 has also remained unrebutted in her testimony during her cross-examination, inasmuch as she has stated that she had given Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash to her mother, the complainant, out of Rs. 14,00,000/- received by her from her mother-in-law. It has been brought on record through the cross-examination of CW-3 that the alleged loan transaction between the complainant and the accused did not take place in her presence and that she is not aware about the existence of any written/documentary proof of the alleged loan. However, it is apposite to mention here that it has already been admitted by the complainant herself during her cross-examination that no agreement was executed between her and the accused at the time of advancing the alleged loan. Further, it is also not the case of the complainant that the loan was advanced to the accused in the presence of her daughter, CW-3. It has been averred in the SURABHI complaint that the loan was advanced in the presence of the son of the SETHI Digitally signed by SURABHI complainant, CW-2. The said fact has been reiterated by the complainant during SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:42:51 +0530 10 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh her cross-examination and has also been corroborated by the testimony of CW-
2.
22. Furthermore, the accused has examined himself as a witness in support of his defence. It has been alleged by the accused in his defence that he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant on 23.09.2013, at the time of the wedding of his daughter. He has further alleged that the loan was advanced to him at an interest of 1% per month, at his house, in the presence of his wife, his son and his friend, Mr. Trilok Singh. The accused has stated that no loan agreement was executed at the time of advancing the aforesaid loan, however, the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was issued to the complainant as a blank signed security cheque.
23. The accused has admitted his liability to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant, by stating that the loan amount could not be repaid by him due to his financial difficulties. The accused has further stated that this led to a verbal fight between him and the complainant, due to which the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) has been misused by her against the accused. During his cross-examination, the accused has admitted his family relations with the complainant. He has further stated that he took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant for the wedding of his daughter in October 2013, in the presence of his wife and his son. It has been admitted by the accused that he does not have any documentary proof to establish that he had taken a loan of only Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant, as opposed to the alleged loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
24. However, in order to substantiate his defence, the accused has examined his wife as a defence witness. It has been deposed by DW-2, Smt. Suresh, the wife of the accused, in her testimony that her husband took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant on 23.09.2013 in her presence and had issued the SURABHI SETHI cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) to her as a blank signed security cheque. DW- Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:42:57 +0530 2 has further alleged that the aforesaid loan was taken at an interest of 2% per 11 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh month. It is pertinent to mention here that this is in stark contrast to the defence of the accused that he had taken the loan of Rs. 50,000/- at a monthly interest of 1%. Further, DW-2 has also contradicted the accused inasmuch as she has stated that the accused was regularly paying the interest to the complainant, as it has been admitted by the accused during his cross-examination that he did not return any money to the complainant out of the alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/-. DW-2 has also contradicted herself during her cross-examination, by stating that no interest was agreed at the time of the alleged loan transaction of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter, she has stated that her husband had paid interest to the complainant for 4-5 months.
25. It has been alleged by the accused and DW-2 that the alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/- in the presence of the friend of the accused, Sh. Trilok Singh. However, the accused has failed to examine Sh. Trilok Singh as a witness, in order to prove the alleged loan transaction of Rs. 50,000/-. Further, no documentary proof of either the said loan transaction or of the fact that the wedding of the daughter of the accused took place in October 2013, has been placed on record by the accused, in order to probabilize his defence that he had only taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and not the loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-, as alleged by the complainant.
26. Furthermore, the son of the accused, Sh. Gulshan Kumar, in whose presence the alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced to the accused, has also been examined as defence witness, DW-3. It has been deposed by DW-3 that the alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/- was taken by his father from the complainant in his presence. He has further deposed that a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused when the complainant demanded a higher rate of interest, for which the accused also filed a cheating case against the complainant SURABHI for the misuse of the security cheque. The same fact has also been deposed by SETHI Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI DW-2 in her testimony. However, the accused or any of the defence witnesses Date: 2025.09.26 16:43:08 +0530 12 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh have failed to place on record any document pertaining to such a case allegedly filed against the complainant. Further, it is interesting to note that there is yet another contradiction in the versions of the wife and the son of the accused. It has been stated by the wife of the accused, DW-2 during her cross-examination that there was no fixed period of the alleged loan transaction of Rs. 50,000/- between the accused and the complainant. Per contra, it has been stated by the son of the accused, DW-3 during his cross-examination that the alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced to his father for a period of 3-4 months.
27. It is also the defence of the accused that the cheque in question (Ex. CW- 1/A) was not issued to the complainant in discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability, but only as a security cheque and the same has been misused by him. As regards a cheque given as security, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002) has held that a cheque issued way of security, if dishonoured, would attract the provisions of the NI Act, if the same is issued in consequence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, which has become recoverable at the time of its presentation. It has been held that:
"If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow."
28. In light of the above discussion, it has been established that the accused, SURABHI SETHI though has denied the loan transaction of Rs. 15,00,000/- with the complainant, Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:43:13 +0530 13 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh however, he has neither denied the issuance of the cheque in question (Ex. CW- 1/A), nor his signatures on the same. In view of the same, the dishonour of the said cheque would entail consequences under the NI Act, unless such debt/ liability was not legally enforceable on the date on which the cheque was drawn or on which it was presented to the bank, or if the amount of the debt/ liability had already been paid by the accused to the complainant prior to the presentation of the security cheque for encashment.
29. It is also a trite law that once the cheque, even if it is blank, is signed and handed over to the holder, it means that person signing it has given implied authority to the holder of the cheque to fill up the remaining particulars on the cheque. This law is clearly laid down in Section 20 of NI Act. In the case of Satish Jayantilal Shah v. Pankaj Mashruwala & Anr. (1996 Cri.L.J.3099), it has been held that "No law provides that in case of any Negotiable Instruments, entire body has to be written by maker or drawer only." In the case of Moideen v. Johny (2006 (2) DCR 421), it has been held that when a blank cheque is issued, the drawer gives an authority to a person to whom it is issued, to fill it at appropriate stage with necessary entries and to present it to the bank.
30. Further, the accused has also examined Branch Manager, Canara Bank (Earlier Syndicate Bank), Tilak Nagar, Delhi, as a witness in support of his defence. DW-5 has placed on record the cheque book issue register (Ex. DW- 5/1) of the concerned bank with effect from 07.06.2010 to 26.08.2013. It has been stated by DW-5 that as per the register (Ex. DW-5/1), the cheque book containing leaf numbers 200551 to 200575, pertaining to the bank account number 90462010084933, in the name of the accused, was issued to the accused on 22.07.2013. By examining the said witness, the accused has attempted to establish that since the cheque book containing the cheque in question was issued to the accused from his bank only on 22.07.2013, it was impossible for SURABHI SETHI the accused to have issued the same cheque to the complainant on 27.04.2013, Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:43:19 +0530 14 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh at the time of advancement of the alleged loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
31. It has been admitted by DW-5 during his cross-examination that he had joined the bank only in 2017 and that the register (Ex. DW-5/1) was not prepared in his presence. He has further admitted that he cannot identify the signatures on the said document to be those of the accused as the same was not signed in his presence. He has further admitted that he has no knowledge as to who had received the particular cheque book.
32. Even if for the sake of argument it is believed that the cheque book containing the cheque in question had not been issued to the accused by his bank, at the time of advancement of the alleged loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- or that the complainant has stated an incorrect date of advancement of the said loan, the same is not sufficient to probabilize the defence of the accused that the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant, as the signatures of the accused on the said cheque and the issuance of the same to the complainant are not disputed by the accused. Further, no evidence has been led on behalf of the accused to offer a plausible explanation about the possession of the cheque in question by the complainant. Accordingly, the accused has failed to establish that the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/A) was not issued to the complainant for the purpose as alleged by her.
33. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of V.S. Yadav vs. Reena (CRL. A. NO. 1136 of 2010) has held that:
"Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not amount to rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act. If mere statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or under Section 281 Cr.P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/ SURABHI SETHI Digitally signed by prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But, it is not the law.
SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:43:24 +0530 15 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued."
34. No credible evidence has been brought on record by the accused to substantiate the defence taken by him. The accused also did not lead any evidence to impeach the credibility of the documents tendered by the complainant. Further, the burden lied upon the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions raised in favour of the complainant in the present case, by proving the facts pleaded by him. The accused has not placed any cogent material on record to rebut the presumptions in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the Court can safely believe the case of the complainant, supported by the statutory presumptions under Sections 139, 118 (a) and 118 (g), NI Act, as well as the documentary evidence led on behalf of the complainant. In the absence of any credible evidence from the accused, his plea of defence cannot be believed to be the gospel truth.
G. CONCLUSION:-
35. In the backdrop of the above discussion, the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence so as to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt/ liability, raised in favour of the complainant in the present case. Nothing has come out in the entire evidence on record which SURABHI SETHI would probabilize the defence raised by the accused or falsify the case of the Digitally signed by SURABHI SETHI Date: 2025.09.26 16:43:36 +0530 complainant.
36. The complainant has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused, Krishan Singh stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
16CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh
37. This judgment contains 17 pages. The judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in open Court and each page bears the signature of the undersigned.
38. Let copy of this judgment forthwith be supplied to the convict free of cost. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI SETHI Announced in open SETHI Date:
2025.09.26 16:43:41 +0530 Court on 26.09.2025 (SURABHI SETHI) JMFC (NI ACT)-02, WEST DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI 17 CC No. 6131/2016 Kamlesh Verma vs. Krishan Singh