Delhi District Court
Manish Chauhan vs Anil Kumar Meena on 13 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Mr ANUBHAV BIJALWAN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (N.I. ACT), DIGITAL
COURT - 07, SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSW020193232021
CC NI Act No: 8218/2021
SH. MANISH CHAUHAN
S/O SH. MAHAVIR SINGH
R/O FLAT NO.446,
GREEN VIEW APARTMENT,
POCKET -2, DWARKA SECTOR - 19,
NEW DELHI ...... Complainant
::Versus::
SH. ANIL KUMAR MEENA
S/O LATE SH. SHARWAN KUMAR,
R/O RZ-83, DABRI EXTENSION,
NEAR BANK OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI - 110045. ........ Accused
Offence Complained of: 138 of the NI Act
Plea of the Accused: Not guilty
Date of Institution: 22.07.2021
Date of Judgment: 13.08.2025
Decision: Convicted
CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena
Page 1 of14
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
BIJALWAN
BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13
15:42:07 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act') bearing CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021, against the dishonor of cheque bearing no. 189896 dated 26.02.2021for a sum of Rs 10,00,000/-, cheque bearing no. 132869 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 5,00,000/-, cheque bearing no. 188174 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 188165 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, A1/20, Vijay Enclave, Palam Dabri Road, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as 'the cheques in question').
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case put forth by the complainant are that the complainant and accused are known to each other from last 10 years and having friendly relation. That the accused approached the complainant in the month of June 2019 for a friendly loan of Rs.18,00,000/- for his personal need and complainant considered his request and gave Rs.8,00,000/- cash in the month of June 2019, Rs.10,00,000/- cash in the month of January 2020, out of which the complainant borrowed Rs. 9,00,000/- from his father and remaining amount of Rs.9,00,000/- gave from himself in the month of June 2019 to January 2020. That after receiving the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- from the complainant, accused assured the complainant to return the said friendly loan in the month of February 2021. That after expiry of the stipulated period , complainant approached the accused in the month of February 2021 and asked the accused to repay the said loan and then the accused issued cheque bearing no. 189896 dated 26.02.2021for a sum of Rs 10,00,000/-, cheque bearing no. 132869 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 5,00,000/-, cheque bearing no. 188174 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 188165 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, A1/20, Vijay Enclave, Palam Dabri Road, Delhi in discharge of his liability and assured the complainant that the said cheques will be honoured on their presentation. It is stated that in discharge CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 2 of14 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:42:16 +0530 of his liability accused had issued four cheques in question which were dishonored with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque returning memo dated 05.03.2021 which is on record. Legal demand notice dated 19.03.2021 was sent to the accused. However, no payment was made within 15 days and hence, the present complaint.
3. The complainant examined himself as CW-1 in pre-summoning evidence, and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit along with the following documents: -
S. No. Documents relied upon Exhibited as:
1. Cheque bearing no. 189896 Ex.CW-1/A to dated 26.02.2021for a sum Ex.CW-1/D respectively of Rs 10,00,000/-, cheque bearing no. 132869 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 5,00,000/-, cheque bearing no. 188174 dated 26.02.2021 for a sum of Rs 2,00,000/-
and cheque bearing no.
188165 dated 26.02.2021 for
a sum of Rs 1,00,000/-
2. Original return memos dated Ex.CW-1/E to Ex.CW-1/H 05.03.2021 respectively
3. Legal notice dated Ex. CW-1/I 19.03.2021
4. Speed Post receipt dated Ex. CW-1/J 19.03.2021
5. Tracking report Ex. CW-1/K PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE
4. Notice of accusation u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 30.04.2022, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 3 of14
Digitally signed by
ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV BIJALWAN
BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13
15:42:26 +0530
Thereafter, accused was granted opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and matter was fixed for complainant evidence.
5. The complainant examined himself as CW-1. He was discharged after examination in chief and cross examination. Complainant also examined one more witness namely Mr. Mahavir Chauhan as CW-2. CW-2 was discharged after examination in chief and cross examination and on 05.07.2024, complainant closed his evidence and the matter was then, listed for recording of statement of accused.
6. All the incriminating evidence was put before accused and his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which it was stated that "I had not received the money from the complainant, The cheques were not issued by me in favour of the complainant. The complainant was my friend and he used to regularly visit my home and drive my car and it is possible that he had stolen the said cheques from my home or my car.I had not received any legal demand notice. However, the address mentioned on the same, is mine. I had not taken any money from the complainant. In fact, I had loaned an amount of approximately Rs.3 lakhs to the father of the complainant and Rs.1.50 Lakhs to the complainant himself by way of of online transaction". The matter was thereafter listed for DE.
7. DW1 was examined, cross examined and discharged on 22.04.2025. DE stood closed vide order dated 27.06.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
8. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the accused should be convicted because the complainant has proved all the ingredients of the offence. Moreover, contradictory defence have been taken by the accused during various stages of the trial, hence, the accused is liable to be convicted of the alleged offence.
CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 4 of14 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:42:34 +0530
9. Per Contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the accused does not have any legal liability towards the complainant and therefore the offence under Section 138 is not made out and the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION
10. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence, as highlighted below:
1st Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
2nd Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
3rd Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
4th Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
5th Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 5 of14 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:42:44 +0530 the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. The accused can be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act only if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively.
With Respect to First and Third Ingredient:
12. It has not been contested by the accused that the cheques in question have been drawn on his account however the accused has denied his signatures on the cheque.
13. Under Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is enunciated that the person who asserts a fact must prove the same unless the law otherwise provides. At this stage it is pertinent to mention that the accused has failed to prove or bring on record any cogent evidences to show that the cheques in question do not bear his signature. The accused has failed to examine bank witness or handwriting expert in order to prove that the cheques do not bear his signature and have been forged by the complainant. Therefore, the story of accused, in the absence of any cogent evidence, cannot be taken as a gospel truth, specifically, when signatures of the accused affixed on the cheque in question prima facie appears to be similar when compared with the signatures appended by the accused on the documents available in the court records. Upon exercising power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, this court has no hesitation to remark that there is a visible similarity in the style, spacing, alignment, relative size, proportion and the nature of commencing and terminating of the questioned signature with the signatures of the accused on various documents present in the Court record. Moreover, all the cheques have been dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and not because of any difference in the signature of the drawer. Therefore, in the present case, even if line of defence is that the CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 6 of14 Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:42:53 +0530 accused has not signed the cheques in question, the presumption shall be raised in favour of complainant unless rebutted by accused. Now, by virtue of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act, a presumption arises in favour of complainant that the cheques in question were issued by accused to discharge a legally enforceable liability.
14. It was not disputed that the cheques in question were presented within period of validity. The cheques in question were returned unpaid vide return memos Ex. CW-1/E to Ex CW-1/H with the remark "Funds insufficient". The said reason is duly covered within the scheme of NI Act. Therefore, requirement of first and third ingredients stand fulfilled in the present matter.
With Respect to Fourth and Fifth and Ingredient:
15. As far as proof of fourth and fifth ingredient is concerned, the complainant sent a legal demand notice Ex. CW-1/I to the accused. Postal dispatch receipts are Ex. CW-1/J. Accused during the stage of notice u/s 251 CrPC and at the stage of recording the statement u/s 313 CrPC the accused had submitted that he had not received the legal demand notice however, the address on the notice mentions his address correctly. Since no independent evidence regarding non-receipt of legal demand notice has been led by the accused, considering that it has been properly addressed and posted by the complainant (as proved by the postal receipts), the same is presumed to have been delivered under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "IEA") and Section 27 of General Clauses Act as well as in view of the law laid down in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 236, wherein it was held as follows: "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 GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 7 of14
Digitally signed by
ANUBHAV ANUBHAV
BIJALWAN
BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13
15:43:02 +0530
16. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that legal demand notice was duly served upon the accused. Furthermore, it is also clear from the record that accused had failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of summons as well. Hence, fourth and fifth ingredient also stand fulfilled.
With respect to second ingredient:
17. The second ingredient is that the cheque should have been drawn for legally enforceable debt or liability.
18. It is pertinent to discuss two important legal presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque as soon as the execution of cheque is proved.
19. As per Section 118(a) NI Act, it shall be presumed that every negotiable instrument was 'made, accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed for consideration, unless the contrary is proved'. Furthermore, as per section 139 NI Act, it shall be presumed that 'the holder of cheque, received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved.'
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa,(2019) 5 SCC 418 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 at page 422 held as follows:
(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 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. 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 accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 8 of14 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:43:10 +0530 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 in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden Can the presumption of section Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act be raised in the present matter?
21. The accused in the present matter has not contested that the cheque has been drawn on his account and has led no evidence to prove that his signatures have been forged in the cheques in question. Therefore, the aforesaid question is answered in affirmative and accordingly, this Court raises presumption under section Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act that the impugned cheques were issued by accused number to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.
What is the standard of proof required to rebut the Presumption raised under Section Section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act?
22. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused persons to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption of existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability arisen in favor of the complainant.
23. The effect of the presumption has been explained in a catena of judgments, including the decisions in, Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 and Rohit bhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat &Anr (2019) 18 SCC 106. It has been held time and again that the said presumption is a rebuttable one and its only effect is to shift the initial burden of proof on the accused. When the presumption is raised in favor of CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 9 of14 Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:43:18 +0530 the complainant, the burden shifts upon the accused to disprove the case of the complainant by rebutting the presumption raised in favour of the complainant.
Has the presumption been rebutted in present case?
24. One of the most important aspects in the present scenario is the circumstance under which cheque would have been procured by the complainant. The accused has not been able to provide a satisfactory defence in this regard. At the stage of framing the notice, he had stated that the cheques were misplaced and any allegation with respect to theft by the complainant was not made and it was stated that the complainant used to visit his house. When the statement of the accused was recorded on 13.01.2025, it was stated that the cheques could have been stolen by the complainant from the house or the car of the accused, which the accused used to drive. Further, when the accused was examined in chief, it was stated by him that there is a possibility that the complainant took the cheque from his car. From the aforesaid discussion it appears that the accused has tried to improvise his defence as to how the cheques were obtained by the complainant at every stage of the trial. When the accused was cross- examined by Ld. counsel for the complainant, accused had testified that he got to know in 2019-2020 that this PAN card, Aadhaar card, voter ID card of his wife and driving licence were missing and complaint regarding loss of document was filed in year 2024, after the present complaint was filed by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that in his cross examination, accused had not stated his cheque book to be missing rather had mentioned other documents including PAN card, Aadhaar card, voter ID card. It is inconceivable that the accused realised his documents of such significance in day-to-day life were missing after 4 long years. Also, the copy of the complaint filed by the accused has not been placed on record and therefore it cannot be ascertained if the complaint was filed with respect to the cheque book as well.
25. When the accused was cross examined, it was stated by him that he CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 10 of14 Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:43:26 +0530 got to know that the complainant had misused his cheques when the police official arrived at his residence with warrants and therefore, he could not inform the bank about the loss of cheques. Perusal of the court records shows that the Bailable Warrants were issued againt the accused on 30.10.21 and the warrants were executed on 13.12.2021, towards the end of 2021. On the other hand, it has been stated by him that he came to know of the loss of documents towards the end of 2019 and the subsequently a complaint was filed in 2024. It is also submitted on behalf of the accused at the stage of framing of notice that he had tried to file a complaint in concerned police station, however we was told that he need not worry as cheques were not signed. Even if this argument of the accused is taken into consideration, the accused could have easily informed his bank and could have stopped the payment, however, the accused failed to take any step and the cheque was returned due to insufficiency of funds. No evidence is led by the accused to show his efforts to recover the cheque or report its alleged misuse to the bank or authorities, thereby failing to demonstrate that he indeed did everything within his power and control, as a reasonable and prudent person would, to ensure that the cheques were not misused.
26. Another contradiction in the testimony of the accused is that when the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC it was stated by him that he had advanced amount of Rs 1.5 lakh and 3 lakh to complainant and his father by way of online transaction. However, in examination in chief of the accused dated 22.04.2025, it was stated by him that he does not have any financial transaction with the complainant. This is one of the major contradictions in the testimony of the accused. Moreover, the proof of payment through online transaction has not been provided by the accused.
27. In his Cross-examination it was admitted by the complainant that he had filed the income tax return for the assessment year 2018- 19 however he has not disclosed the alleged loan to the accused in his ITR. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused that loan of ₹ 18 Lacs should have been 18 Lacs should have been CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 11 of14 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:43:34 +0530 reflected by the accused in his ITR. It is a settled law that non-reflection of loan in ITR by complainant cannot be a sole ground to rebut the presumption raised in favour of complainant under Section 138 NI Act but coupled with other factors corroborative value can be attached to the said fact. It was opined by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lekh Raj Sharma v Yash Pal (Crl.L.P 567/2014) that even if loan disbursed to the accused was not shown by the complainant in Balance sheet and ITR it could not be said that the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
28. The accused had opportunity to demonstrate that the complainant does 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 or even by punching holes in the testimony of the complainant or the witness that is produced by the complainant in his favour. However the accused has failed to assail the financial capacity of the complainant by examining any witness, producing any document or punching holes in the testimony of the complainant or his father (Ex CW-2).
29. On the other hand, the complainant has examined his father as CW-2 who had testified that he is doing the business of sale and purchase of vehicles including LPG tankers and every vehicles and that the entire sum of Rs 18 lakhs was given by Son to the accused in his presence out of which Rs 9 lakhs were withdrawn from his own account. Evidence of an interested witness cannot be merely discarded for that reason and the testimony of CW2 has not been discredited in his cross examination. In order to show the financial capacity of the complainant and his father, reliance has been placed on their statements of account Exhibited as CW 1/L (Colly).
30. It has been further argued by Ld counsel for the accused that since the entire alleged amount of Rs 18 Lakh was given by the complainant to the accused in cash, it is violative of Section 269 of the Income Tax Act which prohibits acceptance or advancing loan exceeding an amount of Rs 20 Thousand by cash. It is further argued that since the aforesaid statutory CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 12 of14 Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:43:42 +0530 provision is infringed, the alleged loan is not legally enforceable debt or liability. 1 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that in Raj Sharma v Yash Pal (Supra) reference was placed by the court on Mr. Krishna P. Morajkar vs. Mr. Joe Ferrao, 2013 CRIJ (NOC) 572 Bombay wherein the Court had observed: "The underlined observations do not disclose as to where can one find a prohibition on recovering amounts not disclosed in income tax returns. With utmost humility, I have to state that I have not come across any provision of Income Tax Act, which makes an amount not shown in the income tax returns unrecoverable. The entire scheme of the Income Tax Act is for ensuring that all amounts are accounted for. If some amounts are not accounted for, the person would be visited with the penalty or at times even prosecution under the Income Tax Act, but it does not mean that the borrower can refuse to pay the amount which he has borrowed simply, because there is some infraction of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Infraction of provisions of Income Tax Act would be a matter between the revenue and the defaulter and advantage thereof cannot be taken by the borrower. In my humble view, to say that an amount not disclosed in the income tax returns becomes irrecoverable would itself defeat the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the argument by Ld counsel for the accused that the alleged loan is a not a legally enforceable debt is not tenable.
31. It has been further argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that it is very strange that an amount of the tune of Rs 18 lacs was given by the complainant to the accused without any written agreement. Perusal of the record shows that the accused has admitted during the trial that he had friendly relations with accused since 2011 and that the complainant to used to visit the residence of the accused. Considering the friendly relations between the parties, it can be conceived that the loan could have been given based on mutual trust and therefore any legal agreement was not signed.
32. It has also been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as per 1 Reliance has been placed by Ld. Counsel for the accused on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. C. Hari Vs. Shine Varghese & Others in Cri. Rev. Pet. No.408/2024.
CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 13 of14 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV BIJALWAN BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13 15:43:53 +0530 the complainant Rs 8 lacs was given by the complainant to the accused in June 2019 and subsequently Rs 10 Lacs was given in January 2020. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that it is in conceivable that a further loan of Rs 10 Lacs was advanced by the complainant when the accused had not repaid the earlier loan of Rs 8 Lacs. Perusal of the complaint shows that in paragraph No. 3 of the complaint it has been clearly mentioned that the accused had approached the complainant in the month of June 2019 for a friendly loan of ₹ 18 Lacs should have been 18 lakhs. Therefore, the agreed amount was 18 lakhs and the same was given to the accused in 2 instalments in June 2019 and January 2020. The complainant has reiterated the same in his cross examination.
33. The accused has presented a disjointed and inconsistent defence, failing to substantiate the claim of either the cheque being misplaced or stolen by the complainant. Numerous contradictions in the accused's testimony undermine the credibility and reliability of his defence and therefore the statutory presumption raised, remains unrebutted.
Conclusion
34. Accordingly, accused ANIL KUMAR MEENA is hereby con- victed of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears the signa- ture of the undersigned.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded as per rules.
Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost as per rules.
Convict be now heard on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV
BIJALWAN
BIJALWAN Date: 2025.08.13
15:44:06 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ANUBHAV BIJALWAN
ON 13.08.2025 JM FC (NI ACT) Digital Court-07
South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT No. 8218/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page 14 of14