Delhi District Court
Savender Singh vs Bina on 27 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARIBA KHAN, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS - 02, N.I.ACT, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC NI ACT / 5216/2024
Savender Singh Vs. Bina / ()
A. CNR No. DLST02-022371-2024
B. Date of Institution 24.06.2024
C. Name of complainant Savender Singh
S/o Sh. Randhir Singh
R/o C/13, Type-II, Tower-7,
East Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi- 110023.
D. Name of the accused, his Bina
parentage and address
W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o 16/327, block No. 16,
Trilokpuri, New Delhi,
Patparganj, Delhi- 110091.
E. Offence complained of Under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
G. Date of judgment 27.03.2026
H. Final Order Convicted
Factual Background
1.Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the complaint filed by Sh. Nikhil Chanana under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Page 1 of 12 Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 17:02:50 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) against the accused, Sh. Savender Singh, in respect of dishonour of cheque bearing no. 000015 and 000008 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Mayur Vihar phase-1 branch, Delhi. ( Hereinafter referred to as 'cheques in question').
2. It is the case of the complainant that-
The complainant and the accused are well known to each other for quite a long time and had friendly relations with each other. The accused had approached the complainant in the month of October, 2022 for seeking financial assistance and the complainant had advanced total amount of Rs 12 lacs after withdrawal of Rs 6 lacs and 5 lacs from his bank account maintained in Bank of Baroda, S.J.H Branch and Safdarjang Enclave Branch on 3.10.2022 and Rs 1 lac was lying at his residence. The aforesaid loan amount was given to the accused as a friendly loan in the presence of a common friend namely Shri Dharam Pal who also worked in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, on 03.10.2022 against promissory notes duly signed by the accused and witnessed by Shri Dharam Pal.
3. The aforesaid cheques in question were dishonoured with the reason 'Payment stopped by drawer' vide return memos dated 26.04.2024.The complainant therefore sent a legal notice dated 13.05.2024 at the last known address of the accused. However, the accused failed to reply to the notice. The accused failed to make payment despite having the legal demand notice having been sent.
4. Based on the complaint and the documents annexed, the accused was summoned. Upon the appearance of the accused, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon her on 02.09.2024, to which she pleaded not guilty. She took the defence that she had given three blank signed cheques to the complainant, two of which are the cheques in question. It was further stated by her that she had never Page 2 of 12 Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.27 17:02:57 +0530 availed a loan of Rs 12,00,000 from the complainant and that the complainant has filed a false case against her. She further stated that she had only availed a loan of Rs 50,000/- from the complainant in lieu of which I had given 3 security cheques including the cheques in question as a pre-condition for loan of Rs 50,000/- to the complaint via online mode. She stated that she had received the legal demand notice. At the stage of statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C the accused admitted her signature on the cheques in question and also admitted the return memo along with receipt of legal demand notice.
5. Thereafter, an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2024 of this court, and after several opportunities, the complainant was duly examined, cross-examined and finally discharged on 17.03.2025.
6. The complainant examined himself as CW-1 in post-summoning evidence, and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit along with the following documents:-
a. Evidence of affidavit Ex. CW-1/A b. Bank statement of the complainant Ex CW 1/1 (colly) c. Promissory note executed by the accused Ex CW1 /2 d. Original cheques in question Ex. CW-1/3 & 4 e. Return Memos Ex CW-1/5 f. Office Copy of Legal Notice along with postal receipt Ex.CW-1/6 g. Tracking report Ex.CW-1/7 h. Certificate u/s 65 B IEA Ex CW 1/8 CW-1 was cross-examined and discharged on 28.11.2024 and CW-2 was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 13.12.2024.Page 3 of 12
Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.27 17:03:01 +0530
7. On 07.02.2025, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, and her statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The accused chose to lead DE. DW-1 was examined and cross-examined during the stage of DE.
8. Next, it is important to state the arguments forwarded by the parties.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
9. During final arguments, the counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint and submitted that the accused had admitted the issuance of the cheques in question and her signature on the same and while she has claimed that she repaid an amount of Rs 50,000/-, she has failed to prove the same. It was further submitted that though the accused has claimed that she had signed the papers while they were blank, this argument is not tenable as the promissory note bears the signature of the accused on 5 different spots and thus this argument is not tenable. It was also argued that the accused has annexed a screen shot of payment whereby an amount of Rs 50,000/- to one Puneet however she has failed to establish any relation between the accused.
10. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the accused reiterated the defence taken by the accused during the trial and stated that the complainant has failed to aver the dates or the place where the cheques in question were handed over to the complainant. Furthermore, it was argued that the complainant has himself filled the details of the cheque in question and that the complainant has failed to establish a friendly relation between the parties. The counsel also argued that the complainant had failed to establish the need for loan on part of the accused.
11. Before going forward, it is essential to map the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 NI Act. A bare reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that the following ingredients must be fulfilled from the contents of the Page 4 of 12 Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 17:03:05 +0530 complaint and evidence set forth by the complainant before the accused can be made liable-
"(a) The accused issued a cheque on an account maintained by him with a bank.
(b) The said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability, which is legally enforceable.
(c) The said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of the cheque or within the period of its validity.
(d) The aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured.
(e) The payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
(f) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the aforesaid legal notice of demand."
12. Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983, noted at para 23 Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441]:
(i) 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.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 of NI Act is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence.Page 5 of 12
Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 17:03:08 +0530 The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant 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.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come into the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come into the witness box to support his defence.
13. Points of determination-
A. Whether from the facts of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and evidence adduced before this court, the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the NI Act has been raised against the accused?
B. If yes, then has the accused been able to rebut the said presumptions by raising a probable defence?
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
14. Point for determination (A): Whether from the facts of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and evidence adduced before this court, the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the NI Act has been raised against the accused?
Page 6 of 12Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 17:03:12 +0530
15. The position of law as envisaged by the provisions under Section 118 and 139 NI Act have been made abundantly clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 wherein it has been held as under:
"9. As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption."
16. The abovesaid legal position was further reiterated in another leading case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde vs. Sripad SCC Online SC 788 which was decided on 23.09.2021. In this case, the accused, at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and under his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, had admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. The court held that once the signatures are admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act becomes operative in favour of the complainant.
17. Similarly, in the instant case, the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question at the stage of statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
18. Accordingly, from the facts of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and evidence adduced before this court, the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the NI Act has been raised against the accused.
19. Points of determination number (B): If yes, then has the accused been able to rebut the said presumptions by raising a probable defence?
Page 7 of 12
Digitally
signed by
ARIBA
ARIBA KHAN
KHAN Date:
2026.03.27
17:03:18
+0530
20. Now coming to the basic ingredients of Section 138 NI Act, it can be read in evidence that the accused has admitted that he issued the cheques in question . Further, he has admitted the return memo.
21. The accused has stated in his statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. that he did not receive the legal notice. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammad & Anr AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 1705 held that:
"17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
22. In light of the above judgment, the argument that the accused did not receive the legal notice does not help the case of the accused, as the complainant had correctly addressed the legal notice (the accused has admitted that the legal demand notice was correctly addressed) and the postal receipts and tracking report also show that the legal demand notice had been sent through registered post. Other than his bare averments, the accused has failed to submit any evidence to rebut the presumption raised under Section 27 G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
23. Thus, it is apparent that the basic ingredients of Section 138 NI Act, as stated above, are fulfilled.
Page 8 of 12
Digitally
signed by
ARIBA
ARIBA KHAN
KHAN Date:
2026.03.27
17:03:22
+0530
24. The only ingredient which remains to be examined is whether the accused has been able to prove that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt or any other liability?
25. It is abundantly clear that the presumptions raised under Section 118 (a) and 139 of NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. However, to rebut the said presumptions a bare denial of the debt is not sufficient.
26. To this effect, in the case of Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1993) 3 SCC 35 (Para. 12) the Honourable Apex court held as follows:
"The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that it did not exist."
27. In the present case, the following points have been considered to evaluate whether a probable defence has been raised by the accused- Loan amount not borrowed by the accused
28. The accused has taken the defence that she never borrowed a sum of Rs 12,00,000/- from the complainant and had instead only borrowed a sum of Rs 50,000/-. However the accused has failed to submit any proof regarding the same. While the complainant has annexed his bank account statements which are Ex. CW-1/1 (colly) which show that he had withdrawn the a total sum of Rs 11 lacs from his two bank accounts. This fact corroborates the story of the complainant as it clearly establishes the economic capacity of the complainant and the fact that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs 11,00,000/- further corroborates the fact that the complainant had lent an amount of Rs 12,00,000/ to the accused.
Page 9 of 12Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.27 17:03:27 +0530 Testimony of CW-2
29. CW-2 has stated that he knew both the complainant and the husband of the accused as worked in the same hospital as the complainant and the husband of the accused. The witness has alleged that he was a witness to the fact that the complainant had lent money to the accused. Even the accused has admitted the fact that at the time when the complainant had transferred her money, the complainant was accompanied by CW-2 Dharampal.
30. Thus it is the admitted position of both the parties CW-2 was a witness to the transaction. Furthermore, the witness has withstood the test of cross- examination and the testimony proved to be consistent. He has corroborated the version of the complainant that-
the complainant had lent a sum of Rs 12,00,000/- to the accused the parties had signed a promissory note which is Ex. CW 1/2 CW-2 was a witness to the promissory note the accused had handed over the cheque in question to the complainant 5-6 months later in his presence.
31. Nothing has come forth in the cross-examination that could affect the credibility of CW-2. Thus it is seen that the version of the complainant has been corroborated by an independent witness.
Amount of Rs 50,000/ paid back to the complainant.
32. The accused has alleged that she had repaid an amount of Rs 50,000/- to the complainant. She has even annexed the payment proof for the same which is Ex DW1/A (colly). However, the receipt shows that the amount was transferred to one Puneet. During her cross-examination when the accused was questioned regarding whether she had any evidence to prove that amount was transferred to Page 10 of 12 Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 17:03:32 +0530 Puneet on the behest of the complainant, she replied that she did not have any proof as the complainant had asked her to transfer the amount through phone call.
33. Thus it emerged that the accused could not establish any connection between Puneet to whom she had transferred the money and the complainant. Promissory note a forgery:
34. The accused has alleged that the promissory note is a forged document and she had merely signed the blank papers.
35. However, this argument is not tenable as the promissory note has been signed by the accused at several places and it is not comprehensible as to why a person would sign a blank document at multiple places and how subsequently a printed document could be prepared perfectly aligning with the signatures. The document also bears stamps which are signed by the accused.
36. Furthermore, it is not tenable as to why any rational person would sign a blank document. Thus, keeping in mind the common course of natural events, it has to be presumed that the accused signed this document voluntarily and knowing its contents.
No friendly relationship was established between the complainant and the accused
37. The counsel for the accused has argued that no friendly relation has been established between the parties. However, this line of argument was only taken up at the stage of the final argument, and none of the witnesses was questioned on this line. Furthermore, the complainant has alleged that he worked alongside the husband of the accused and this has not been contested by the accused. Thus, prima facie it appears that there was a friendly relation between the parties. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it cannot be presumed that there was no Page 11 of 12 Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 17:03:37 +0530 friendly relation between the parties despite the husband of the accused having worked with complainant.
38. Thus, it is clear that the defence of the accused that the cheque in question that she had only borrowed a sum of Rs 50,000/ which she had later repaid, is not supported by evidence and is uncorroborated, appears to be improbable and does not warrant belief. It is seen that the accused has failed to raise a probable defence; she has failed to bring out any substantial contradictions or loopholes that could affect the credibility of the version of the complainant and has thus failed to rebut the presumption against her.
39. Accordingly, the point of determination (B) is decided against the accused and in favour of the complainant CONCLUSION
40. Accordingly, this Court finds that the accused Bina is held 'guilty' of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, and accordingly, she is convicted of the said offence.
41. This judgment contains 11 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court, and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
42. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Saket, forthwith.
43. Let a copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
Announced in Open Court Digitally signed by ARIBA ARIBA Date:
KHAN KHAN 2026.03.27 on 27.03.2026 17:03:43 +0530 (ARIBA KHAN) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02/NI ACT(SD) SAKET/NEW DELHI/27.03.2026 Page 12 of 12