Delhi District Court
Ajit Sinha vs Kevin Kapadia on 4 August, 2025
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
IN THE COURT OF Ms. POOJA KUMARI,
JMFC (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT-02, SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
CNR No. DLST020099412021
IN THE MATTER OF:
AJIT SINHA
S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Sinha
R/o 15th floor Eros corporate Towers
Nehru Place -48
...Complainant
Versus
KEVIN KAPADIA
S/o Sh. Shashikant Kapadia,
R/o A/3-8, Amrapali Flats,
New Sharda Mandir Road,
Ahmedabad, Gujrat
...Accused
Date of institution : 20-07-2021
Summoned on : 11.02.2022
Offence Charged with : U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881
Notice u/s 251 of CrPC : 20.04.2022
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of judgment : 04.08.2025
Final order : Convicted
Page 1 of 23 POOJA
Digitally signed
by POOJA
KUMARI
KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04
16:49:09 +0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of
aforementioned complaint case against abovementioned
accused for an offence u/s 138 Negotiable instrument Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred as NI Act).
Complainant Case in brief:
2. Complainant is a business man and also an investor. Accused
is into the business of investments in shares of various
companies in the stock market. Accused approached the
complainant for investment and made him arrange Rs. 23
Lakhs through cheque. The complainant got transferred said
amount of Rs. 23 Lakhs in the account of Kapadia
Corporation from the account of Mukesh Kumar and his wife.
Complainant had also given Rs. 45 Lakhs in cash to accused
to invest in King Infra Shares @ Rs.22 each and accused
assured complainant to return the invested amount along
with profit not less than return @ 24 % per annum. The
accused sold the paid-up shares without permission of
complainant. After much pursuance and efforts of the
complainant, a settlement agreement dated 31.12.2020 was
executed between accused, father of accused and
complainant. While execution of agreement dated
31.12.2020, accused handed over a cheque bearing no.
000052 dated 09.04.2021 for a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-
(hereinafter referred as cheque in question) in discharge of
Digitally signed
Page 2 of 23 by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:50:10
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAthe legal liability towards the complainant.
3. Complainant presented the said cheque in question, which
upon presentation was returned dishonoured for the reason
“Drawers signature differs” vide bank return memo dated
13.04.2021. Therefore, complainant sent a legal demand
notice dated 22.04.2021, through post, calling upon accused
to pay the amount mentioned in cheque in question which
was duly served him. Since, the accused failed to pay the
amount of the cheque in question within 15 days of service
of notice, the complainant has moved to this court with the
present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “NI
Act“).
4. Upon prima facie consideration of the pre-summoning
evidences in light of ingredients of section 138 of NI Act, the
accused was summoned vide order dated 11.02.2022.
5. After appearance of the accused, accusations under Section
251, Cr.P.C. was explained to him on 20.04.2022, to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage, accused
denied the signature on cheque in question and taken the
defence that complainant has filed false case against him.
Accused has stated in his defence that the cheque in question
is not correct. Accused also denied the receiving of legal
demand notice. Hence, he denied his liability towards the
Page 3 of 23
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:50:14
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAcomplainant qua cheque in question.
6. At this stage, admission and denial of documents under
Section 294 Cr.P.C was also done, whereby the accused
denied to admit all documents filed by complainant.
7. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for accused orally sought permission
for cross-examination of complainant u/s 145 (2) of NI Act.
The same was allowed vide order dated 20.04.2022.
Complainant Evidence:
8. At the stage of post-summoning evidence, complainant
examined himself on affidavit being Ex.CW1/A.
Complainant has relied on following documents to prove his
case: –
S.No. Name of Document Dated Exhibit
1. Settlement agreement 31.12.2020 Ex.CW1/1
2. Original Cheque 09.04.2021 Ex.CW1/2
bearing no. 000052 for
Rs. 1,05,00,000/-
3. Original Return Memo 13.04.2021 Ex.CW1/3
of Cheque in question
4. Copy of legal Demand 22.04.2021 Ex.CW1/4
notice pertaining to
Cheque in question
5. Original speed post Ex.CW1/5
Digitally signed
Page 4 of 23 POOJA
by POOJA
KUMARI
Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:50:18
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAReceipt (colly.)
6. Delivery reports – Ex.CW1/6
(colly.)
7. Statement of demat Ex.CW1/7
account for Escorts (colly.)
securities Ltd.
8. Statement of demat Ex.CW1/8
account for Global (colly.)
Capital Market Ltd.
9. Certain documents to Ex.CW1/D1
prove purchase of (colly.)
shares of King infra
10. Emails along with Ex.C-1
certificate u/s 65 B of (colly.)
IEAThereafter, complainant evidence was closed vide separate
statement on 23.01.2023.
9. After closing of complainant’s evidence, the statement of
accused under Section 313 read with Section 281 of Cr.P.C
was recorded on 08.02.2023, whereby the entire
incriminating evidences were put to him. At this stage also,
the accused stated that complainant has not given
Rs.45,00,000/- in cash. Accused further stated that the
settlement agreement as well as the cheque in question does
not bear his signature. He also stated that he has not open any
Demat account in the stock market in his name after 2015.
Digitally signed
Page 5 of 23
by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:50:21 +0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIADefence Evidence:
10. To substantiate the plea of defence, accused filed an
application u/s 315 Cr.P.C for the examining himself on oath
as DW-1. Documents/evidences placed on record in support
of defence are as follows:
S.No Nature/name of documents Marked as
1. Statement of Bank Account of Ex. DW1/1
accused for April 2021
2. Demat Account of accused with Ex. DW1/2
JM financial services Limited
(colly.)
3. Demat Account of accused Ex. DW1/3
Ratnakar Securities Pvt. Ltd.
(colly.)
4. Demat Account of father of Ex. DW1/4
accused with ACML Capital
(colly.)
Markets Ltd.
5. GST registration certificate of Ex. DW1/5
Kapadia corporation
6. Statement of Bank Account of Ex. DW1/6
Kapadia corporation along with
certificate u/s 65 B of IEA
7. Photocopy of PAN card of Mark-A
accusedSince, no other witness was sought to be examined by the
accused, defence evidence was closed vide separate
statement dated 25.04.2025. Thereafter, case was fixed for
advancement of final arguments.
11. Final arguments were advanced by both the parties and matter
was fixed for judgment.
Digitally signed by
Page 6 of 23 POOJA POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04
16:50:35 +0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
12. Submissions have been considered and record of the case has
been perused.
Submissions of Ld. Counsel for complainant.
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused
has not admitted his signatures on the cheque in question,
however, being the holder of the cheque in question,
presumption of the cheque in question having been issued in
discharge of debt or other liability arises in favour of the
complainant in terms of Section 118(a) read with Section 139
of NI Act. Ld. counsel submitted that as per the landmark
judgment of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of M/S Laxmi
Dyechem vs State Of Gujarat & Ors 2012 (13) SCC 375 the
Division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
just like the dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the
“account has been closed” is a dishonour falling in the
dragnet of the definition of the offence defined u/s 138 of NI
Act, in the same way the dishonour of cheque on the ground
that the “signatures do not match” i.e., the specimen
signatures given in the bank do not match with the signatures
inscribed on the cheque in question, too constitute an offence
of dishonour of cheque within the meaning of Section 138 of
the NI Act. Ld. Counsel for complainant further referred the
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ajitsinh Chehuji
Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (SLP(Crl.) No(s).
16641 of 2023) and M. M. T. C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals
and Pharma (P) Ltd. (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 182) and
Page 7 of 23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:50:36
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAsubmitted that the burden is on accused to prove that the
signature on the cheque in question is not his. Further
submitted that accused has not filed any evidence to prove
the same nor examined any witness.
Ld. Counsel for complainant further submitted that the
accused in his deposition stated that he had not handed the
cheque in question to the complainant, however in his cross
examination admitted the cheque in question belong to his
account but did not receive any information from the bank
regarding dishonour of cheque in question. Ld. Counsel
contended that accused has brought and filed his bank
account statement from which cheque in question is drawn
i.e., Ex. DW-1/1 and in his cross-examination dated
16.03.2024, the accused has admitted that the Same is
reflected in his bank statement i.e., Ex. DW-1/1 at point A
to A. Further submitted that the accused in his cross
examination also admitted that he has not filed any case with
any authority with respect cheque in question Ex CW 1/2 to
be declared null and void. Ld. Counsel further pointed out
that after receiving summons from this Court in the present
case, the accused has not made any complaint with any
authority in respect of cheque in question, from this it is
evident the accused issued the cheque in question.
Ld. Counsel for complainant further pointed out that the
accused in his cross examination admitted that the email
dated 30.12.2020, settlement agreement Ex. CW 1/1 was sent
Digitally
signed by
Page 8 of 23
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:50:01
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAby [email protected] to [email protected]. The
accused further admitted that the email id
[email protected] belong to his wife and
08.03.2020, 28.03.2020, 24.05.2020, 24.05.2020, 04.09.2020
and on 28.09.2020 his wife sent email to complainant Ajit
Sinha through email id [email protected], which
itself speak sanctity of the settlement agreement.
Ld. Counsel for complainant referred the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapatti
Mohammad (Crl.)767/2007” to prove the service of legal
demand notice to accused.
It was contended that the act of the accused of not filing even
a single case or complaint on such a grave matter, proves by
itself beyond reasonable doubt that the accused himself
issued the cheque in question as per the settlement agreement
i.e. Ex. CW-1/1 with the complainant and therefore accused
has not filed any complaint/ case against the complainant as
the accused have set up a false defence in his deposition and
trying to evade the liability.
Ld. Counsel further submitted that submitted that reliance on
provisions of Section 269SS and 271D of the Income Tax
Act, have absolutely no bearing on the present complaint as
the object of enacting Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act is to enhance the acceptability of cheques. Ld. Counsel
has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in
“Mr. Krishna P. Morajkar vs. Mr. Joe Ferrao & Anrs.”
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA
Page 9 of 23
KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:57
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2012) and Shri Deelip
Apte V/s. Nilesh P. Salgaonkar & Ors. Reported at 2006
(2) Goa L.R. 229 to support his contentions.
Ld. Counsel for complainant finally argued that the
complainant received no payment within 15 days of the
service of the legal demand notice coupled with the
admissions of the accused, duly proves all the ingredients of
the offence under Section 138 NI Act. Thus, submitted that
since all the ingredients laid down under Section 138 NI Act
are fulfilled, the accused liable is to be convicted.
A) K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan and Another 2001 (8) SCC
458
B) Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 (6) SCC
16
C) Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010 (Air 2010
Supreme Court 1898)
Submissions of Ld. Counsel for Accused
14. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that there is no legally
enforceable debt or liability of accused against the cheques in
question on the ground that the present complaint under
section 138 of N. I. Act, filed by the complainant, is false,
frivolous, misconceived and also a gross abuse of process of
law. It was submitted that accused has examined himself on
oath and has placed on record various documents on record
to prove his defence. It was further argued that accused has
Page 10 of 23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:49:55
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAtaken specific plea that he has neither signed the said cheque
in question nor the settlement agreement dated 31.12.2020.
Ld. counsel for accused contended that the complaint has
averred (in para 3) that complainant has given an amount of
Rs.23 Lacs through bank transfer to the accused namely
Kevin Kapadia, however, Rs.23 Lacs as mentioned in the
complaint itself was given to Kapadia Corporation and not to
the accused Kevin Kapadia. Further argued that accused is
not the proprietor of Kapadia Corporation and has nothing to
do with the business activity of the said firm which is run by
Shashikant Kapadia.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused has further pointed out and
submitted that there is inherent contradiction in the complaint
and the legal notice/ settlement agreement as the complainant
has averred (in para 3) that he has given an amount of Rs.23
Lacs through bank transfer to the accused whereas in the
alleged settlement agreement dated 31.12.2020 (Ex. CW1/1)
(the signature of this document has been denied by the
accused) at page 18 of the complaint and in the para 2 of the
legal notice dated 22.04.2021 (Ex-CW1/4) at page 22 of the
complaint, it is stated that complainant has invested a sum of
Rs.25 Lacs. Ld. Counsel for accused further pointed out that
the amount of Rs.45 Lakhs cash is nowhere mentioned in
settlement agreement i.e., Ex. CW1/1 and legal demand
notice and the complainant has come up with this new fact
only in complaint, which signify the falsehood of
Digitally
Page 11 of 23
signed by
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:53
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAcomplainant and proves that the complainant has filed false
and fabricated case. Further contended that the complainant
in his cross-examination dated 23.01.2023 has admitted that
he has not shown Rs.45 Lacs in cash in his ITR. He has also
not produced any document to show either the source or the
capacity. In fact, in his cross-examination he has lied that the
alleged settlement agreement records the factum of payment
of Rs.45 Lacs in cash. Ld. Counsel for accused has referred
The Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in “Criminal Appeal
No. 1978 of 2013 titled as Rajaram son of Sriralulu Naidu
versus Maruthachlam” and submitted that the Hon’ble
court has been pleased to hold that in case the amount given
by the complainant is not declared in Income Tax record then
it has been presumed that the Complainant did not have
financial capacity to lend money as alleged. Ld. Counsel
further contended that the Demat Accounts (Ex.CW1/7 and
Ex.CW1/8) filed by the complainant on 23.01.2023 does not
show that any shares were transferred to the accused Kevin
Kapadia.
16. Ld. Counsel further contended that even assuming but not
admitting that the alleged settlement agreement dated
31.12.2020 (Ex. CW1/l) is correct still the same states at page
19 (3rd para from top) that the first party shall return the
investment of the second party with 24% interest within a
period of twelve months with a condition that Rs.8 Lacs +
interest and 0.65 Lacs Shares will be paid each quarter
Page 12 of 23
Digitally signed
POOJA by POOJA
KUMARI
KUMARI 16:49:50
Date: 2025.08.04
+0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
without fail. It is further stated in the said agreement that the
cheque-in-question has been issued for the total value to be
encashed on the due date i.e. the value agreed by the party
after the expiry of twelve months. The agreement was
allegedly signed on 31.12.2020 and the cheque was deposited
on 13.04.2021 i.e. after the first quarter. The liability as per
the settlement agreement as on 09.04.2021 was less than the
total amount mentioned in the cheque and therefore no case
under the N.I. Act, 1881 is made out. Ld. Counsel for accused
referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1947 of 2022 titled as Dashrathbhai
Trikambhai Patel versus Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel &
Anr. decided on 11.10.2022 and submitted that Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that for the
commission of an offence under section 138 of the N.I Act,
1881, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally
enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation.
17. Ld. counsel further argued that these facts cast serious doubts
for the present case filed by the complainant. These
discrepancies and omissions raise serious doubts about the
authenticity of the complainant’s allegations. Finally
submitted that in light of these facts, the complainant has
failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued in
relation to the alleged liability, therefore accused is liable to
be acquitted from this case.
Digitally
signed by
Page 13 of 23 POOJA
POOJA
KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:48
+0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
Counter submissions of Ld. Counsel for Complainant
18. Ld. Counsel for complainant countered the submissions of
Ld. counsel for accused and submitted that not showing the
amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs in ITR does not prove that
complainant has no financial capacity and also accused has
not called the ITR or any document to dislodge the capacity
therebefore it is are not fatal to the case. Complainant case
stood firm during the cross-examination. Ld. Counsel
contended that accused has made a false story and raised
concocted defence to evade the legal liability against the
cheque-in question. Ld. counsel argued that the depositions
of accused could not prove that the agreement in not
enforceable and thereby accused not liable for the cheque in
question. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the
mandatory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act
cannot be rebutted on a bare denial but only when cogent
evidence is led by the accused which has not been led in the
instant case. Hence, complainant has evidently established
his case and proved all ingredient of section 138 of NI Act.
Findings:
19. Before analyzing the facts of case and evidences adduced by
both parties, it is needed to understand the ingredients
required to prove the case under Section 138 of the NI Act,
which are as follows:
“(a) The accused issued a cheque on an account maintained
Page 14 of 23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:45 +0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAby 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 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 aforesaid legal notice of
demand.”
20. In the present case, in order to discharge his initial burden to
prove the above-mentioned ingredients, complainant relied
upon his own evidence affidavit marked as Ex. CW1/A and
placed on record several documents being Ex. CW1/1 to Ex.
CW1/8.
21. In the present case, the complainant who deposed as CW-1
has discharged his initial burden on the basis of the
documents mentioned hereinbefore.
22. Now, upon a careful perusal of the record and on hearing the
parties at length, apropos the defence of the accused, the
question which need to be decided are as follows:
A) Whether the denial of signature on the cheque in
Digitally signed
Page 15 of 23 by POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:49:42
+0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAquestion, release accused being the drawer of cheque
in question u/s 138 of the NI Act?
23. The primary ingredient of offence u/s 138 of NI Act is the
issuance of cheque by drawer in favour of payee.
Complainant alleges that accused issued cheque in question
in his favour for the repayment of alleged liability as per
settlement agreement i.e., CW-1/1. On other hand accused
denied his signature on cheque in question. To address
whether the statutory presumptions under Section 118(a) and
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as the “NI Act“) are applicable in such
circumstances, it is imperative to understand the scope and
meaning of the term “holder” of the cheque.
Section 139 of the NI Act prescribe as follows:
“It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138
for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability.”
Section 8 of the NI Act defines “holder” as:
“The ‘holder’ of a promissory note, bill of
exchange or cheque means any person entitled
in his own name to the possession thereof and
to receive or recover the amount due thereon
from the parties thereto.”
From a bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that a
Page 16 of 23
POOJA Digitally signed by
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04
16:49:40 +0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
person who is in possession of the cheque and is entitled to
receive the amount thereon is considered the “holder” in due
course. Therefore, the complainant, being in possession of
the cheque and asserting that it was issued in discharge of a
legally enforceable liability, is prima facie entitled to the
presumption under Section 139. Importantly, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs State of
Gujarat & Ors., (2012) 13 SCC 375, held that dishonor of
a cheque on the ground that the “signature does not match”
or that “image is not found”, which indicates a mismatch of
specimen signatures, still falls within the ambit of dishonor
under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court observed that
such instances cannot oust the applicability of presumptions
under Sections 118 and 139. Furthermore, the use of the
phrase “unless the contrary is proved” in Section 139
indicates that the presumption is rebuttable in nature.
However, until such rebuttal is successfully raised by the
accused, the presumption continues to operate in favour of
the complainant.
24. Therefore, in present case despite the denial of signatures on
the cheques in question, the statutory presumption under
Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of the NI Act remains
intact, unless and until the accused is able to rebut the same
on preponderance of probabilities in light of ruling of hon’ble
Supreme Court titled as “Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa
2019 (5) SCC 418″
Digitally signed
by POOJA
Page 17 of 23 POOJA KUMARI
Date:
KUMARI 2025.08.04
16:49:37
+0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
B) Whether the accused has established, on a
preponderance of probabilities that no legally
enforceable debt or liability existed towards the
complainant in relation to the cheque in question?
25. Ld. counsel for accused has contended that accused has
neither signed the cheque in question nor handed over the
same to complainant. However, the accused has failed to
bring any material on record from which it can be inferred
that he has not handed over the cheque in question to the
complainant. Although, accused had filed an application to
examine handwriting expert on 31.05.2024, however, no
reports were submitted nor the expert witness was examined.
This failure significantly casts serious doubt on the accused’s
version. Furthermore, on a prima facie comparison, the
signature on the cheque in question visibly resemble those on
other documents acknowledged or admitted by the accused,
including the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the notice
under Section 251 CrPC and the depositions as DW-1. In
addition, the accused has failed to offer any cogent
explanation as to how the cheque in question came into the
complainant’s possession if it was neither issued nor signed
by him. This unexplained custody further weakens the
defence case and supports the presumption under law.
26. Ld. counsel for accused further contented that accused has
nothing to do with the Kapadia corporation and its business,
therefore he is not liable for any liability qua the transactions
Page 18 of 23
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:34 +0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAbetween Kapadia corporation and complainant. However,
court is of view that the association of any person can be
gathered from the material available on record. In the present
case the complainant has filed agreement i.e., Ex. CW-1/1,
which bears the signature of accused. Notably, the accused
has not disproved the genuineness of his signatures, nor has
he made any effort to demonstrate that it was forged or
misused. On the contrary, the signature on Ex. CW-1/1, when
visually compared with admitted documents, appears to be
similar to the accused admitted signature on other documents.
During cross-examination, the accused also acknowledged
the existence of communications between his wife and the
complainant, despite the fact that she does not hold the status
of proprietor of Kapadia Corporation. The relevant portion of
cross-examination is as follows:
“At this stage witness is shown email dated
24.05.2020, 01.03.2020, 30.12.2020, 08.03.2020,
28.03.2020, 24.05.2020, 04.09.2020 and 28.09.2020
alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of IEA, which is now
exhibited as Ex. C-1(colly) (running into 09 pages)
and asked:
Que. Is the email ID [email protected],
your email ID?
Ans. This email ID does not belong to me. This was
formed by complainant, Mr. Shaji John for the
correspondence of Kings Infra Shares through
Ameet Ganatra and Uday Mehta.
It is correct that Shaji John related to
Kings Infra about which it is mentioned in Ex. CW-
1/1.
Que. Is the email ID [email protected] your
email ID? Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
Page 19 of 23 KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:32
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAAns. The email ID belongs to my father.
It is correct that from
[email protected], the email correspondence
has taken place on 01.03.2020, 30.12.2020.
Que. Is any correspondence taken by
[email protected] with
[email protected]?
Ans. This is not my email ID.
Que. Is it correct that by the email dated 30.12.2020,
settlement agreement Ex. CW-1/1 sent by
[email protected] to [email protected]?
Ans. I do not know regarding the settlement
agreement email. The email ID
[email protected] does not belong to me.
[email protected] belongs to my
wife. It is correct that on 08.03.2020, 28.03.2020,
24.05.2020, 24.05.2020, 04.09.2020 and on
28.09.2020, my wife has sent email to Ajit Singh
through email [email protected].
(Emphasis Supplied)
The accused possessed knowledge that communications
relating to dealings in King Infra shares, particularly those
involving the complainant and other individuals were
conducted via the email address
[email protected]. Despite this, he denied any
participation in the transactions, a claim that appears highly
implausible given the surrounding circumstances. Notably,
the accused has demonstrable access to records of Kapadia
Corporation, as evidenced by the filing of such documents
during the course of proceedings by him. This access,
coupled with his awareness of key communications, raises
substantial concerns regarding the veracity of his denial and
suggests a probable link to the underlying financial activities.
Digitally signed
Page 20 of 23 POOJA by POOJA
KUMARI
KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04
16:49:26 +0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
Most significantly, the accused failed to lodge any complaint
with a competent authority or law enforcement agency
regarding the alleged misuse of the cheque in question and
the fabrication of a document bearing his signature, marked
as CW1/1. In such instances, where forgery or fraudulent use
of a document is claimed, it is both customary and expected
that the aggrieved party promptly initiates legal action or
reports the matter to the appropriate authorities. The absence
of such a complaint seriously undermines the credibility of
the accused’s allegations and casts doubt upon the
authenticity of his defense.
Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that there is a
discrepancy in the amounts mentioned in the complaint refers
to a sum of Rs. 23 Lakhs, whereas the legal demand notice
and the settlement agreement (Ex. CW1/1) refer to Rs. 25
Lakhs. It was also argued that the amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs is
not mentioned in the said settlement agreement. However,
this Court is of the view that the complainant has based his
case primarily on the settlement agreement (Ex. CW1/1). As
per law, once the execution of the document and issuance of
the cheque are proved, a statutory presumption arises in
favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act.
The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this
presumption and disprove the version of the complainant. In
the present case, the accused has failed to bring any cogent
evidence on record to rebut the said presumption. Therefore,
Digitally
Page 21 of 23 signed by
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:21
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIAthe defence remains unsubstantiated.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441 and Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa,
AIR 2019 SC 1983 has held that the presumption under
Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the burden lies
upon the accused to rebut it on a preponderance of
probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. This can be done
either by leading positive evidence or by relying on the
material brought on record by the complainant to cast doubt
on the complainant’s case. In this case accused has failed to
bring anything on record, so that his version can be believed.
Accused has failed to produce any substance on record which
could show that there is no legally enforceable liability
against the cheque in question. Mere denial, without
supporting documents or material, does not amount to
rebuttal of presumption.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful
appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record,
this Court is of the considered opinion that accused has failed
to rebut the mandatory presumption existing qua the cheque
in question.
28. Decidedly, ingredients which are pivotal to attract liability
under Section 138 NI Act has been duly proved by the
complainant in this present case, accordingly, offence of
dishonor of the cheque in question under the said Section is
made out.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
Page 22 of 23 2025.08.04
16:49:19
+0530
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI ACT NO.: 2807/2021
AJIT SINHA VS. KEVIN KAPADIA
FINAL ORDER
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court finds the
accused guilty of the offence. Therefore, the accused Kevin
Kapadia is convicted for offence under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 accordingly.
This judgment contains total 23 pages and each page is
signed by the Presiding Officer. Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
Announced in open
2025.08.04
16:49:13
+0530Court on 04.08.2025
(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT-
02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
04.08.2025Digitally
Page 23 of 23 signed by
POOJA
POOJA KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2025.08.04
16:49:16
+0530(POOJA KUMARI)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-02
(South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi