Delhi District Court
Balbir Singh Rawat vs Ramesh Kumar on 7 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-NI
ACT, DIGITAL COURT-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
(Presided over by Sh. Shivam Gupta)
Balbir Singh Rawat
Versus
Ramesh Kumar
CC No. 7317-2021
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CNR number : DLND02-020532-2021
2. Name of the complainant : Balbir Singh Rawat
S/o: Late Sh. Mangal Singh
R/o: C-307, Albert Square
Block No. 6, Gole Market,
New Delhi- 110001
3. Name of the accused, parentage : Ramesh Kumar
and residential address S/o: Ram Kumar
Room No. 222A (Now at room no.
427)
Ministry of Power
Sharamshakti Bhawan
New Delhi- 110001
Also at: Village Dhamana, P.O.
Kanwari, Tehsil Hansi, Hissar,
CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar
1
SHIVAM Digitally signed by
SHIVAM GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07
17:15:05 +0530
Haryana- 125037
And
H.No. K-98, Block-1, Type-1
Kala Bari, New Delhi- 110001
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Conviction
7. Date of judgment/order : 07.11.2025
Date of institution: 16.12.2021
Date of reserving order: 20.09.2025
Date of judgment: 07.11.2025
ARGUING COUNSELS
For the Complainant : Sh. Shiv Prasad
For the Accused : Sh. Deepak Godara
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by Sh. Balbir Singh Rawat (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against Sh. Ramesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused person') U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 r/w Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 2 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:09 +0530 Brief facts:
2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused person took a friendly loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from him and a loan agreement dated 31.08.2020 was also executed regarding the same. That the accused had returned Rs. 75,000/- till January,2021. That in discharge of his liability the accused person issued a cheque to the complainant which was dishonoured.
DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES IN QUESTION:
Cheque Cheque Date of the Cheque Date of Reasons number amount cheque drawn on return for memo dishonour 125514 Rs.1,75,000/- 01.11.2021 Union 03.11.2021 Funds Bank of Insufficient India The complainant presented the cheque in question in its bank. The complainant after receipt of the said dishonoured cheque, sent a legal notice dated 09.11.2021 in writing through his counsel through speed post. The accused person had failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant within stipulated time of 15 days, hence this complaint U/S 138/142 NI Act.
Proceedings before the Court:
3. The complaint was received by assignment in this Court. After perusing the complaint and hearing the arguments of the complainant on the point of CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 3 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.07 17:15:12 +0530 summoning of the accused, prima facie it appeared that the offence U/S 138 NI Act, has been made out. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act was taken against the accused on 01.07.2022 and summons were issued to the accused person.
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused person on 03.02.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, considering the defence stated at the time of framing of notice by the accused, and no objection taken by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant this court decided to allow cross examination of the complainant as per 145(2) of the NI Act, and the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant evidence, AR of the complainant examined himself as sole witness CW-1. After due cross examination of CW-1 by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, complainant's evidence was closed in the present case on 10.03.2023. Statement of the accused U/Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 10.03.2023 wherein the accused stated that he will lead defence evidence. Then on 16.05.2023 the accused stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence. Then on 30.05.2023 the accused was pronounced guilty vide a detailed judgment. However the judgment was set aside by Ld. ASJ-03, PHC, NDD vide order dated 18.10.2024 and this court was directed to record the statement of the accused person under Section 313 of CrPC again. Therefore the statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded again on 08.11.2024, wherein the accused person opted to lead defence evidence. On 09.05.2025 the accused person examined himself as DW1 and he was duly cross examined and CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 4 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 17:15:16 +0530 Date: 2025.11.07 discharged on the same day. The Ld. Counsels for the complainant as well as the accused person submitted their written submissions on 20.09.2025 and the case was reserved for judgment.
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has led his evidence by way of evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
1. Loan agreement dated 31.08.2020 CW1/A
2. Cheque bearing number 125514 dated 01.11.2021 CW1/B
3. Bank return memo dated 03.11.2021 CW1/C
4. Legal notice dated 09.11.2021 CW1/D
5. Postal receipt CW1/E
(Colly)
6. Undelivered envelop CW1/F
7. Copies of tracking report CW1/G
(Colly)
8. Complaint CW1/H
9. Invoices alongwith transport receipts CW1/C2
CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 5 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:19 +0530
10. Ledger statement CW1/C3
6. The accused person has brought the following documents on record:
S. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
No.
1. Account statement of the accused person CW1/D1
(Colly) and
CW1/D2
(Colly)
Legal Provisions
7. I have heard counsels on behalf of both sides and perused the record carefully.
8. For fastening liability U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, following are the requirements :-
I. Drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, II. The cheque was issued for payment to another person for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
III. Cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 6 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:22 +0530 earlier. RBI in its notification DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 has reduced the aforesaid period from 6 months to 3 months.
IV. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque;
V. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount;
VI. Failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
The offence under Section 138, NI Act is made out against the drawer of the cheque, only when all the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled.
9. The combined reading of Section 118 and 139 of NI Act, raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is a settled principle of law that the presumption U/S 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence but the burden of proof is on the accused.
CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 7 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:26 +0530
10. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof as recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarize the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. 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. 25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 8 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 17:15:29 +0530 Date: 2025.11.07 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
11. The accused has to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense and basic rationality. Only in a case where the accused comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, that the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted.
Appreciation of evidence:
12. Issuance of cheque: In notice under Section 251 CrPC, the accused person has admitted his signatures on the cheque, and that the cheque in dispute was issued as security. It is also not disputed that the cheque in question is not drawn on the account maintained by the accused person and it is impliedly admitted therefore that the accused firm is the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, ingredient number I stands fulfilled in the present case.
13. Presentment and dishonor of cheque: As per the RBI guidelines, it is essential for the cheque in question be to presented within a period of three months from the date on which they are drawn and the same be returned as unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque. In the case at hand, the cheque in question was returned vide return memo (Ex. CW1/C) due to the reason "funds insufficient" By implication thereof, the cheques were presented within three months and the same were CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 9 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.07 17:15:33 +0530 returned. Therefore, ingredient number III & IV stand fulfilled in the present case.
14. Legal demand notice and payment by the accused thereof: The legal notice (Ex. CW1/D) was dispatched vide Speed Post (Ex. CW1/E) within 30 days of return of the bank memo indicating the cheque in question being unpaid. The fact that the legal demand notice has made a clear and unambiguous demand for payment of the cheque in question is not disputed. The accused has admitted to the receipt of legal demand notice in notice u/s 251 CrPC.
12. Moving on, it is not disputed that the accused has not made the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of legal demand notice. Therefore, ingredient number VI also stands fulfilled in the present case.
Presumption under Section 118A read with Section 139, NI Act
13. The NI Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque, i.e., complainant; firstly, with regard to the issuance of cheque for consideration, as contained in Section 118(a) and secondly, with regard to the fact that the holder of cheque received the same for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, as contained in Section 139 of the Act. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment titled Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 held that a reverse onus clause usually imposes an CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 10 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:37 +0530 evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden and when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. It was further held that the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. Once a probable defence is raised, then the onus is shifted to the complainant to establish that a legally enforceable liability existed in his favour and the burden of proof on the complainant in this case is that of "beyond reasonable doubt."
15. The accused can rebut the presumption as raised under Section 138, NI Act by:
(a) putting forth his defence at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC;
(b) cross-examining the complainant;
(c) when statement of accused is recorded u/s 313 CrPC;
(d) or by leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant.
Rebuttal of Presumption by Accused as to existence of legally enforceable debt CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 11 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:40 +0530
16. In light of the above discussion, since the accused person has admitted that the cheque has been issued as a security cheque, what is left to be seen is whether the accused person has been able to rebut the presumption against him, i.e., whether the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt?
17. The defence of the accused person as per the notice framed under Section 251 of CrPC is that the complainant has misused the security cheque and he has already returned back the loan amount. The case of the complainant is based upon Ex. CW1/A, which is the impugned loan agreement. The accused person has admitted his signatures on the loan agreement however he has stated that the complainant took the signatures on the loan agreement by force and coercion as his family members were kidnapped. It is to be noted that the accused person has not lodged any complaint against the complainant qua the alleged kidnapping. The Ld. Counsel for the accused had cross examined the complainant on Ex. CW1/A, however the credibility of the document was not shaken by the same. Therefore, Ex. CW1/A, remained unrebutted.
18. To prove his defence the accused person has brought Ex. CW1/D1 (Colly) and Ex. CW1/D2 (Colly), which are his bank account statements. As per the bank account statement the accused person has made some payments to the complainant, which are admitted by the complainant. The transactions are of 2019, however, as per Ex. CW1/A the loan is of 2020 thus the above also does not prove the defence taken by the accused person. There is nothing on record to show that the impugned loan was taken by the accused in 2018. When the above CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 12 Digitally signed SHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.07 17:15:44 +0530 was put to the complainant he stated that the transactions are related to the previous transaction and not the impugned loan transaction. The complainant has explained the transactions however the accused person has not produced any evidence to show that the above transactions were against the impugned loan. The accused person has made 6 installments of Rs. 12,500/- after the loan agreement Ex. CW1/A which also shows that the accused person agreed to the terms of the loan and started making the payments to the complainant.
19. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that the complainant has misused the security cheque. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Todi Vs. State of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No.1446 of 2021, has held that dishonour of the security cheque would also amount to an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, if on the date of presentation there is outstanding liability on the accused. The accused person cannot take the defence that the cheque in question was given as security.
20. The Ld. Counsel for the accused person has also raised some contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the complainant in his written submissions. The contradictions and inconsistencies alone in absence of any other evidence or supporting material is not sufficient to put any dent in the testimony of the complainant. The version of the complainant has remained consistent in the complaint, evidence by way of affidavit and his cross-examination. Moreover, the same has not been shaken by the accused person either by his evidence or by the cross-examination of the complainant. The burden was on the accused person to come forth with a convincing defence that appeals to common sense CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 13 Digitally signed by SHIVAM SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.07 17:15:48 +0530 and basic rationality. Only in a case where the accused person comes up with a convincing defence to counter liability, the presumption can be stated to have been rebutted. In this case, the accused has completely failed to rebut the presumption which arises from issuance of cheque.
21. Accordingly, this court holds the accused guilty and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of cheques in question.
22. Let the accused be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
23. A copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Judgment pronounced in the open court on 07.11.2025.
This judgment consists of 14 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.
Digitally signedSHIVAM by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 17:15:53 Date: 2025.11.07 +0530 (Shivam Gupta) Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-02 PHC, New Delhi 07.11.2025 CC No. 7317 of 2021 Balbir Singh Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar 14 SHIVAM Digitally signed by SHIVAM GUPTA GUPTA 17:15:56 +0530 Date: 2025.11.07