Delhi District Court
Jaspal Singh vs Vikas Puri on 18 July, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SETHI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT- 02),
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sh. Jaspal Singh
S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh
Having Office at SH-10/151,
New Moti Nagar
New Delhi - 110015. ..... Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Vikas Puri
S/o Sh. Jatinder Puri
R/o S4/123, IIIrd Floor,
Old Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018 ..... Accused
Complaint Case number : 23950/2016
Date of Institution of Complaint : 09.11.2016
Offence Complained of : Section 138 NI Act
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date of Decision : 18.07.2025
Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
18:06:33
+0530
1
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Jaspal Singh, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘complainant’), against Sh. Vikas Puri (hereinafter referred to as
‘accused’), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘NI Act‘) for dishonour of cheque bearing number 656184, dated
12.09.2016 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, G-7, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-
110018, for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- (hereinafter referred to as ‘cheque in
question’).
A. BRIEF FACTS:-
2. (a) The complainant has alleged that the accused had friendly relations
with him and had approached him in his office on 15.07.2016 for a friendly loan
of Rs. 2,20,000/- for a period of 02 months. It is further alleged that for the
repayment of the said loan and in discharge of his liability, the accused had
issued the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/1) to the complainant and the same
was dishonoured upon presentation, vide return memo dated 14.09.2016 (Ex.
CW-1/2) with remarks “Insufficient Funds”.
(b) Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 28.09.2016
(Ex.CW-1/3) to the accused through his Counsel. However, the accused
allegedly failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, despite
such notice, and therefore, the present complaint has been filed.
3. Per contra, the stance of the accused is that he had taken a loan of Rs.
50,000/- from the complainant in February/March 2014 @ 10% per month. The
accused has further alleged that he had repaid the principle as well as the
interest amount to the complainant by way of cheque and cash and that he has
entry of the payment through cheque in his account. The accused has admitted
Digitally
signed by
issuing the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/1) as a blank signed security cheque
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
18:06:46
+05302
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
to the complainant at the time of taking the alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/- from
him and has further alleged that the same has been misused by the complainant.
B. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE AND NOTICE:-
4. At the stage of pre-summoning evidence, the complainant examined
himself as CW-1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW-1/A. The
complainant relied upon documents Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/7 in his pre-
summoning evidence. Upon finding a prima facie case, the accused was
summoned to face trial vide order dated 25.03.2017. On entering appearance,
the accused was served with the notice of accusation under Section 251, Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) on
21.04.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the
accused was allowed to cross-examine the complainant vide the order of even
date.
C. COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE:-
5. During the trial, the complainant was duly examined, cross-examined and
discharged. The following oral and documentary evidence was led by the
complainant to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
ORAL EVIDENCE
CW-1 Sh. Jaspal Singh
(tendered his evidence by way of affidavit)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. CW-1/1 Cheque bearing no. 656184 dated
12.09.2016 for Rs. 2,20,000/-
Ex. CW-1/2 Return memo dated 14.09.2016
Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
3
18:06:52
+0530
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
Ex. CW-1/3 Legal Demand Notice dated 28.09.2016
Ex. CW-1/4 Postal receipt of legal demand notice
Ex. CW-1/5 Courier receipt of legal demand notice
Ex. CW-1/6 Postal envelope and AD Card of legal
demand notice
Ex. CW-1/7 Postal envelope and Courier receipt of
legal demand notice
D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
6. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the
circumstances appearing in evidence against him, his statement under Section
313, Cr.P.C. was recorded without oath.
E. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
7. Thereafter, the accused opted to lead defence evidence. The following
oral and documentary evidence was led on behalf of the accused in support of
his defence.
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW-1 Sh. Vikas Puri
DW-2 Ms. Bharti
(Officer, PNB, Vikaspuri branch)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. DW-2/1 Account statement of accused from
01.04.2014 to 30.04.2015
8. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. I have heard the
learned counsels on both the sides and have perused the file and given my
thoughtful consideration to the material on record. Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
18:10:25
+05304
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has
proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has failed to lead any
probable defence to rebut the presumptions under Section 139 and Section
118(a) of NI Act. Accordingly, he has argued that the accused be convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 138, NI Act.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant
has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the accused. He has argued that
the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant in
February/March 2014 and had handed over the cheque in question (Ex. CW-
1/1) as a blank signed security cheque to him. He has further argued that the
said loan amount, along with the agreed interest, has already been repaid into
the bank account of the complainant as well as by cash. He has further argued
that accused had not taken any further loan from the complainant and that the
cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/1) has been misused by the complainant and
hence, the accused owes no liability towards the complainant and be acquitted
of the offence under Section 138, NI Act.
F. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
11. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is essential to examine
the law governing the offence under Section 138, NI Act. Bare reading of the
provision shows that in order to establish the offence under Section 138, NI Act,
the complainant must establish the following ingredients:
i. Cheque is drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him
with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another
person for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability.
ii. The debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is
legally enforceable. Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
18:10:31
+05305
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
iii. Said cheque is returned unpaid by the bank either due to
insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused to honour the
cheque or because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from
that account by an agreement made with that bank.
iv. The cheque must have been presented to the bank within a period of
03 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of
its validity.
v. A demand of the said amount is made by the payee or the holder in
due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer
within 30 days of the receipt of information of dishonour from the
bank.
vi. Drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount
to the payee or holder in due course of cheque within 15 days of said
notice.
12. In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142, NI
Act must be fulfilled by the complainant. Therefore, in a complaint under
Section 138, NI Act, the complainant is required to prove that the cheque was
drawn by the drawer (accused) for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
13. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial
proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the accused, until proven guilty.
Thus, the initial burden to establish the guilt of the accused lies upon the
complainant. However, in the trial of an offence under Section 138, NI Act,
once the accused admits his signatures on the cheque in question, certain
presumptions arise in favour of the complainant under the scheme of the Act.
These presumptions result in shifting of onus on the accused. Here, it is apposite
to refer to Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act. Section 118(a) of the
NI Act provides that unless the contrary is proved, a drawn up negotiable
instrument, if accepted, has to be presumed to be for consideration. Further,
Section 139 of the NI Act provides that unless the contrary is proved, the holder Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
18:10:38
+05306
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
of a cheque shall be presumed to have received the same in discharge of any
debt or other liability. Therefore, these two provisions raise a rebuttable
presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was drawn
for consideration and was issued by the accused in discharge of a debt or other
liability.
14. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindra Nath
Bannerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, that it is obligatory on the part of the court to raise
presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act in every case where factual
basis for raising of the presumption has been established. In Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the signature
on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised regarding the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is
of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable
defence.
15. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, the standard
of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities, by which the accused is liable
to raise a probable defence. To rebut the presumption, it is open to the accused
to rely on evidence led by him/her or to rely on the materials submitted by the
complainant or the circumstances upon which the parties rely in order to raise a
probable defence (Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418). Further,
it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513 that to rebut the statutory presumption, the accused
should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of
which, the court may either believe that the consideration or debt did not exist,
or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man, under the
circumstances of the case, would act upon the plea that they did not exist.
16. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is the case of the
SURABHI
SETHI
Digitally signed by
7
SURABHI SETHI
Date: 2025.07.18
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri 18:10:43 +0530
complainant that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the
accused on 15.07.2016 for a period of 02 months, for the repayment of which,
the accused has issued the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/1) in his favour. The
accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. It is also not in
dispute that the cheque in question was presented within the period of its
validity and was dishonoured on presentation. The accused has denied the
receipt of legal notice from the complainant in his statement under Section 313,
Cr.P.C.
17. However, so far as the service of legal demand notice is concerned,
perusal of record reveals that the bail bond furnished on behalf of the accused
mentions the address of the accused as S4/123, IIIrd Floor, Old Mahavir
Nagar, Delhi -110018. This is the same address as is mentioned in the memo of
parties and on which the legal demand notice (Ex. CW-1/3) was allegedly sent
to the accused. Further, it has also been admitted by the accused during his
cross-examination that the address, as mentioned in the complaint, is his correct
address. In view of the same, the presumption of due service of legal demand
notice is drawn under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which provides
that where the notice is sent to the correct address of the accused, the same shall
be presumed to have been duly served. Hence, the plea of the accused that he
has not received the legal demand notice at the given address is not tenable.
18. In the landmark decision of “C. C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Mohd. &
Anr.” (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 555, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that as
under:-
“Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post,
SURABHI
can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of SETHIDigitally signed
complaint Under Section 138 of the Act, make the payment of the
by SURABHI
SETHI
Date: 2025.07.18
18:10:49 +05308
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made the payment
within 15 days of the receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of
complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complainant is liable to
be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of
summons from the court along-with the copy of 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 G. C. Act and
114 of the Evidence Act.”
19. The present complaint has been filed within the period of limitation. It is
thus clear that factual basis for raising the presumption u/s 118(a) NI Act and
Section 139 NI Act is established in the present case. Accordingly, the
mandatory presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act are
raised that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or other liability.
20. Further, Section 118(g), NI Act also lays down a presumption in favour of
the complainant. It states that the holder of the cheque is presumed to be the
holder in due course. Hence, the onus now shifts to the accused to rebut the
presumptions and to establish a probable defence that the cheque in question
(Ex. CW-1/1) was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt/
liability.
21. The defence of the accused is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/-
from the complainant in February/March 2014 and that the cheque in question
(Ex. CW-1/1) was handed over to the complainant as a blank signed security
cheque for such loan, which has been misused by him. In order to substantiate
this defence, the accused has cross-examined the complainant. It has been
brought on record through the cross-examination of the complainant that he had SURABHI
SETHI
advanced a loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused earlier and the same had been Digitally signed by
SURABHI SETHI
Date: 2025.07.18
18:11:02 +0530
9
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
repaid to him by the accused.
22. The complainant has been inconsistent in his stand before the Court. On
one occasion, it has been stated by him during his cross-examination that the
loan of Rs. 50,000/- advanced by him to the accused can be shown by producing
his bank account statement. Pursuant to such statement, his cross-examination
was deferred for want of his bank account statement. However, on the next date
of hearing, the complainant failed to produce his aforesaid bank account
statement stating that he cannot produce the same as his account maintained
with HDFC Bank, Karampura Branch, Delhi, in which he had received payment
of Rs. 50,000/- from the accused, had already been closed about 4 years ago.
23. It is pertinent to note here that when on 14.03.2019, the complainant had
deposed that he can produce his bank account statement, he had the knowledge
that the said bank account had already been closed and this information appears
to have been deliberately concealed during his cross-examination on the
aforementioned date.
24. It is interesting to note that during his cross-examination dated
09.09.2022, the complainant brought yet another bank account to the fore by
stating that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was repaid by the accused into the bank
account of his firm, M/s Jaspal Auto Deals and that the said bank account is in
existence and he can produce the bank account statement of the same. However,
during his cross-examination dated 03.12.2022, the complainant again stated
that the accused never transferred any amount into the bank account of M/s
Jaspal Auto Deals. It is pertinent to note that the complainant thereafter never
brought on record the bank account statement of his firm, M/s Jaspal Auto
Deals.
25. Further, on 09.09.2022, during his cross-examination, the complainant SURABHI
SETHI
took a completely new and inconsistent stand by stating that the amount of Rs.
Digitally signed by
SURABHI SETHI
Date: 2025.07.18
18:11:11 +0530
10
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
50,000/- of the previous loan was repaid by the accused partly in cash and partly
into his bank account. However, it has been later stated by the complainant
during his cross-examination dated 03.12.2022 that the entire amount of Rs.
50,000/- was repaid by the accused in cash, in three installments of Rs. 5000/-,
Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 40,000/-.
26. From the above discussion, it transpires that the complainant has not been
able to put forth a consistent stand during his testimony. He has stated one thing
on one date of hearing and has completely contradicted himself on the very next
date of hearing. Throughout his testimony, the complainant has been changing
his story and no two parts of his story are adding up, so as to inspire the
confidence of this Court. The inherent contradictions within the testimony of the
complainant itself, raise serious doubts about the credibility of the case of the
complainant.
27. Having arrived at the conclusion that the story of the complainant is not
credible, this Court is not called upon to examine the defence of the accused.
However, for the sake of objectivity, the defence of the accused is being
considered. It is also the defence of the accused that he had only taken one loan
of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant and that against the said loan, he had
already paid Rs. 72,000/- to the complainant by way of 10 installments. The
said fact is further fortified by the testimony of DW-2, who has stated during
her cross-examination that the payments made by the accused by way of
cheques, were made into the account of M/s Jaspal Auto Deals. This also raises
a doubt on the testimony of the complainant that the previous loan amount of
Rs. 50,000/- had been repaid to him by the accused in cash. Further, no
explanation is forthcoming from the complainant regarding the receipt of Rs.
72,000/- into the bank account of his firm by the accused, even though the
amount of the previous admitted loan transaction between the parties was only Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
Rs. 50,000/-.
SURABHI SETHI
SETHI Date:
2025.07.18
18:11:18
+053011
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
28. Further, it has been admitted by the complainant during his cross-
examination that no document was executed at the time of advancing the
alleged loan to the accused. It has also been stated by the complainant that there
is no witness to the alleged loan transaction. The complainant, during his cross-
examination, has also stated that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
from his bank account a day prior to advancing the alleged loan to the accused.
It is the defence of the accused that the said amount was withdrawn by the
complainant for some other purpose and not for the purpose of advancing the
alleged loan to the accused. The complainant has also admitted the same and
stated during his cross-examination that the said amount was withdrawn for the
payment of installment of his car and other household expenses.
29. The complainant has also stated during his cross-examination that he had
demanded his money from the accused by way of a telephonic conversation and
also by visiting the house of the accused a week later. However, no evidence,
whether oral or documentary, has been placed on record by the complainant to
show any such demand made by him.
30. The accused, in his defence, has also tried to show that the complainant
did not have the financial capacity to advance the alleged loan of Rs. 2,20,000/-.
During his cross-examination, the complainant has stated that the annual
turnover of M/s Jaspal Auto Deals was Rs. 8,50,000/- and that the balance in his
bank account on the day of advancing the alleged loan to the accused was Rs.
90,000/-. It has been further stated by the complainant that the alleged loan
transaction has not been shown by him in his Income Tax Returns.
31. In light of the above discussion, it is unlikely that the complainant would
have lent the stated sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the accused, without any
written/documentary proof. Further, it is highly improbable that a person would
advance a loan of about 1/4th of his annual income to someone, much less out of SURABHI
SETHI
the amount of money withdrawn from his bank account for meeting his other Digitally signed by
SURABHI SETHI
Date: 2025.07.18
18:11:25 +0530
12
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
household expenses. In view of the same, serious doubt is cast upon the case of
the complainant that he had given the alleged loan of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the
accused.
32. The case of the complainant also does not inspire the confidence of the
Court, in view of the inconsistencies and contradictions brought out in the
testimony of the complainant during his cross-examination. The unreliable
testimony of the complainant also probabilizes the defence of the accused that
the cheque in question (Ex. CW-1/1) issued to the complainant as a security
cheque in respect of the previous loan transaction of Rs. 50,000/- has been
misused by him and that no other loan has been advanced by the complainant,
so as to give rise to any legally enforceable debt/ liability of the accused
towards him.
33. It is a well settled principle of law that prosecution has to stand on own
legs and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul Builders vs. Arihant Fertilizers and
Chemicals & Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 321 that NI Act envisages application of the
penal provisions which needs to be construed strictly. Therefore, even if two
views in the matter are possible, the Court should lean in favour of the view
which is beneficial to the accused. This is more so, when such a view will also
advance the legislative intent, behind enactment of this criminal liability.
G. CONCLUSION:-
34. In the backdrop of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to
establish his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused,
from the cross-examination of the complainant, has been able to raise a SURABHI
SETHI
probable defence so as to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally Digitally signed by
SURABHI SETHI
Date: 2025.07.18
18:11:35 +0530
13
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri
enforceable debt/ liability, raised in favour of the complainant in the present
case.
35. Accordingly, the accused, Vikas Puri hereby stands acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused is
directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond in terms of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C.
36. This judgment contains 14 pages. The judgment has been pronounced by
the undersigned in open Court and each page bears the signature of the
undersigned. Digitally signed
by SURABHI
SURABHI SETHI
Date:
SETHI
Announced in open 2025.07.18
18:11:40
+0530Court on 18.07.2025 (SURABHI SETHI)
JMFC (NI ACT)-02, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI14
CC No. 23950/2016 Jaspal Singh vs. Vikas Puri