Delhi District Court
Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi on 13 June, 2025
In The Court of Sh. Divyam Lila, Municipal Magistrate, East, Delhi CC NI ACT/3551/2018 CNR no. DLET020061742018 Date of Filing: 21-08-2018 Date of Registration : 23-08-2018 Date of Judgement: 13-06-2025 _______________________________________________________________ (Complainant) Shubrat Kumar Rout S/o Sh. K.C. Rout, R/o C-699, Devendra Puri, Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, U.P.-201204 VERSUS (Accused) Ravinder Kumar Joshi S/o Sh. Ram Bharose Joshi, R/o 58/12, Double Story, Govindpuri, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. ________________________________________________________________ Advocate appearing for the complainant: Sh. Priyansh Tyagi Advocate appearing for the accused: Sh. Vinay Kumar Offence punishable under: 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Final Order: Acquittal _____________________________________________________________ -:Index of Judgment:- 1.
Introduction:-…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-……………………………………………………………………… 2
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused………………………..3
4. Issues for Determination:……………………………………………………………………. 4
5. Evidence on Record……………………………………………………………………………. 4
6. Legal Position:…………………………………………………………………………………….6
7. Arguments of the parties:…………………………………………………………………….8
8. Analysis and Findings:……………………………………………………………………… 10
10. Conclusion and Reason for decision:……………………………………………….. 18
11. Order:……………………………………………………………………………………………..19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
-:Judgement:-
1. Introduction:-
a. This judgment adjudicates a complaint filed under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as
“NI Act“) by the complainant against the accused for the alleged
dishonour of a cheque in the case based on the trust based loan/
friendly loan.
2. Brief Facts of the Case:-
a. The complainant, Shubrat Kumar Rout, filed the present complaint
alleging that the accused, Ravinder Kumar Joshi, issued three
cheques to discharge a legally enforceable debt, which were
dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant and accused
were close friends with familial ties as alleged in the complaint.
The complainant claimed that he and his mother extended a
friendly loan of Rs. 3.5 lakh to the accused (Rs. 2 lakh by his
mother in May 2015 and January 2016, and Rs. 1.5 lakh by him in
March 2016) to help the accused with financial difficulties,
including funding his niece’s MBA admission.
b. The present case pertains to the three cheques drawn on IDBI
Bank, Modi Nagar bearing no. Cheque No. 128884, dated
20-03-2018, for Rs. 25,000, Cheque No. 128885, dated
21-03-2018, for Rs. 25,000 and Cheque No. 128886, dated
22-03-2018, for Rs. 25,000. (referred as “cheques in question”
herein). These cheques in question were presented for encashment
through the complainant’s banker, IDBI Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi,
on 19-06-2018, but were returned unpaid with the remark “Funds
Insufficient”. The complainant issued a statutory demand noticeCC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 2/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhidated 10-07-2018, served on the accused on 11-07-2018,
demanding payment within 15 days. The accused failed to pay,
leading to the filing of this complaint within the statutory period.
The complainant alleged that the accused’s actions constituted an
offense under Section 138 of the NI Actc. Hence, the cognizance in the present matter was taken, and the
accused was summoned for the purpose of trial.
d. The present case pertains to the bunch of two connected cases filed
by the complainant against the accused persons; arising out of six
cheques of Rs 25,000/- each. Three cheques each forming part of
each case bearing no. CT 3552/2018 and CT case 3551/2018.
Similar judgements are being passed in both the cases for the
purpose of disposal.
3. Notice Framed on the Accused and Plea of the Accused
a. The accused was served notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he
pleaded “not guilty”.
b. The accused denied filing the date on the cheques but admitted
filling the particulars on the cheque in question. The accused also
denies receiving the legal notice. The accused admitted signing the
cheque in question.
c. In his defense, the accused claimed that he had given the cheque in
question to the complainant. The accused stated that he had taken a
loan of Rs. 1.45 lakhs @ 5% interest per month from the
complainant in 2016-2017. The accused stated that he had already
repaid the loan along with the interest through on-line transfer. He
stated that his cheques were misused by the complainant and he
stated he owed nothing to the complainant.
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 3/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
4. Issues for Determination:
a. The cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or
liability.?
b. The cheque was presented within the period of validity of three
months?.
c. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.?
d. A legal notice was duly served.?
e. The accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period.
f. The accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption
under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.?
5. Evidence on Record
a. Complainant’s Evidence: The complainant, Shubrat Kumar Rout,
a Defence employee (Assistant Commander-III), filed an affidavit
stating he and the accused were close friends for over 25 years,
with familial relations. He extended a Rs. 1.5 lakh loan in March
2016, and his mother, Smt. Padmalya, gave Rs. 2 lakh (Rs. 1 lakh
in May 2015, Rs. 1 lakh in January 2016) to the accused as a
friendly loan. He reiterated the contents of the complaint. In the
Cross-Examination: The complainant admitted the affidavit was
drafted by his counsel on his instructions and signed in court. He
confirmed knowing the accused for 25 years as an LIC agent but
never purchased a policy from him. He earns Rs. 85,000/month,
spends Rs. 1.5 lakh annually on his children’s education, and his
wife and mother are housewives with no income. His mother lived
with his brother in Modi Nagar during 2015-16, while he was
posted in Manesar, Gujarat, and Jammu. He could not recall
specific visits to Modi Nagar in 2017, except possibly in June for
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 4/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
vacation. The loan was given in cash, withdrawn from
ATM/cheque, but he could not provide dates or amounts of
withdrawals, promising to produce bank statements and salary slips
but failing to do so, citing the matter’s age. He admitted not
declaring the loan in his income tax returns and not producing his
mother as a witness to confirm the Rs. 2 lakh loan. When shown
the accused’s bank statements (Ex. CW-1/DX1, SBI and IDBI
accounts, showing payments of Rs. 1,33,161 from 28-02-2017 to
17-04-2018), he could neither confirm nor deny receiving these
payments, stating he needed to review records. He did not produce
his bank statements, despite suggestions that they would reflect
payments received, claiming they were untraceable. He denied the
accused’s claim of repaying Rs. 1.75 lakh (loan plus interest) and
disputed the accused’s assertion that only a Rs. 1.5 lakh loan was
taken, not Rs. 3.5 lakh.
b. Statement of accused : Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281
Cr.P.C; the accused admitted signing the cheques and filling
particulars except the dates, claiming they were given as security in
2018 for a Rs. 1.5 lakh loan taken in 2017, not Rs. 3.5 lakh. He
denied receiving the legal notice but confirmed the address was
correct. He claimed the Rs. 1.5 lakh loan was fully repaid via
online transfers and cash, and the complainant misused the
cheques.He chose not to lead defense evidence after consulting his
lawyer.
c. Defence Evidence: The accused did not lead any defence evidence
and the matter was listed for final arguments.
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 5/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
6. Legal Position:
a. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the following essential elements
must be satisfied as per the judgement in Kusum Ingots & Alloys
Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 954 ,both
in the complaint and the evidence presented by the complainant:
i. Drawing of the Cheque: The accused must have drawn a
cheque on an account maintained by them, for the payment
of a legally enforceable debt or liability to another person.
ii. Timely Presentation: The cheque must be presented to the
bank for payment within three months from the date on
which it was drawn, or within the period of its validity,
whichever is earlier.
iii. Dishonour of the Cheque: The cheque must be dishonoured
by the bank due to either insufficient funds in the account or
because the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the
bank.
iv. Notice of Demand: The payee or holder of the cheque must
issue a written demand for payment to the drawer, within 30
days of receiving information from the bank regarding the
dishonour.
v. Failure to Pay: The drawer must fail to make payment within
15 days of receiving the notice of demand.
b. Additionally, the provisions of Sections 139 and 118 of the Act
further strengthen the case for the complainant. Section 139 creates
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, mandating that
the court shall presume, unless proven otherwise, that the cheque
was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability. Section
118, on the other hand, provides that there is a presumption that
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 6/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
every negotiable instrument, including a cheque, was made for
consideration, and that it was transferred for consideration.
c. In the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418;,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that once the execution
of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 imposes a rebuttable
presumption in favour of the complainant, establishing that the
cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The
presumption is rebuttable and the accused has the opportunity to
raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting this
presumption is based on the preponderance of probabilities.
d. The court further held that it is not mandatory for the accused to
enter the witness box to prove their defence. They may rely on the
evidence presented by the complainant or any other available
materials. The onus to rebut the presumption lies on the accused,
but it is important to note that this is an evidentiary burden, not a
persuasive one.
e. Thus, Section 138 operates on the principle of reverse onus of
proof: once the complainant proves the essential elements of
dishonour, the burden shifts to the accused to raise a plausible
defence. The presumption of guilt is strong, but not irrebuttable,
and the accused is entitled to challenge it through a preponderance
of evidence.
f. In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is to be
examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of
preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the
presumption which has been raised against him and in favour of the
complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the
complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the
accused again on the complainant. As held by Hon’ble Supreme
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 7/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
Court of India in case of Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets
(2009) 2 SCC 513, the accused can either prove the non−existence
of the consideration and debt by direct evidence or by bringing on
record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which,
the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt either
did not exist or their non−existence was so probable that a prudent
man may act upon the plea that they did not exist. If the Court
comes to the conclusion that the accused has not been able to rebut
the presumption raised against him by failing to bring on record
direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case
of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his
favour.
7. Arguments of the parties:
a. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant : The learned
counsel for the complainant submitted that the case is squarely
covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, and the accused is liable for the dishonour of the cheque. The
key arguments advanced by the counsel urged the court to convict
the accused, are as follows:
i. The accused admitted signing and issuing the cheques,
triggering the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act
that they were issued for a legally enforceable debt.
ii. The accused failed to lead any defense evidence to rebut this
presumption or prove repayment.
iii. The complainant fulfilled all procedural requirements:
cheque presentation, dishonor, timely legal notice, and
non-payment within 15 days.
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 8/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiiv. The accused’s claim of repayment lacks corroboration, and
his failure to produce evidence of online transfers or cash
payments undermines his defense.
b. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the Accused : The learned counsel
for the accused vehemently argued that the complainant has failed
to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the case is
based on a fabricated narrative to extort money. The key arguments
advanced by the counsel, while praying for the acquittal of the
accused, are as follows:
i. The complainant failed to prove the Rs. 2 lakh loan from his
mother, as she was not examined and admitted to having no
income or ITR filings.
ii. The complainant could not substantiate the Rs. 1.5 lakh cash
loan, lacking bank statements, withdrawal records, or salary
slips, despite promising to produce them.
iii. The accused’s bank statements (Ex. CW-1/DX1) show
payments of Rs. 1,33,161 from 2017-2018, which the
complainant did not deny or explain, suggesting repayment.
iv. The complainant’s failure to produce his bank statements,
despite suggestions that they would reflect payments
received, warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g)
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
v. The cheques were given as security, not for an existing
liability, and were misused after the loan was repaid.
vi. The complainant’s evasive responses during
cross-examination and non-production of records indicate
the debt was discharged.
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 9/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
8. Analysis and Findings:
a. Issue 1 – Issuance of Cheque: This ingredient pertains to the
issuance of the cheque in question itself. The Accused, in his notice
of accusation has stated that his signature was present on the
cheque in question. The plea of the accused that the date of the
cheque in question was not filled by him is of no help; as the
signature of the accused on the cheque is not disputed. Reliance
can be placed, at this juncture, wherein Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Anr. (2008) 102DRJ147, held:
“Section 20 NI Act talks of “inchoate stamped instruments” and
states that if a person signs and delivers a paper stamped in
accordance with the law and “either wholly blank or have written
thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument” such person thereby
gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof “to make or
complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for
any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount
covered by the stamp.” “A collective reading of the above
provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is
possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed
by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the
said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and
presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the
NI Act which defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink
pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with
the signature thereon as constituting a ‘material alteration’ for the
pur- poses of Section 87 NI Act. What is essential is that the
cheque must have been signed by the drawer.” Further, in Bir
singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 it was held that:-“It
is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 10/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiother than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If
the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138
would be attracted.” Hence, In the present case, Prima facie the
ingredient that the cheque was issued to the complainant has been
satisfied as the accused tacitly admitted her signature on the cheque
and the account of society. Having admitted the basic ingredient,
the presumption is drawn against the accused and now the accused
would have to prove that the cheque in question was not issued by
him for discharge of the liability; by way of rebuttal of the
presumption drawn against him. Whether the accused was able to
successfully rebut the adverse presumption is dealt in detail in the
issue no. 6; However, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
complainant and the presumption is drawn against the accused.
b. Issue 2 – Presentation within Validity: The essential requirement
of the offence under section 138 NI act is that the cheque has to be
presented within three months of the date of the cheque. This
ingredient stands satisfied on a bare perusal of the cheque in
question and the return memo being presented within the period of
validity. The cheque is also not dishonoured with the remark
“instrument stale”; as the cheque has been dishonoured with a
return memo noting the reason for return as “Funds Insufficient”.
The defence has led no evidence to controvert the same and hence,
this ingredient stands fulfilled as against the accused. Hence, this
issue is also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque
has been proved to be dishonoured within the period of validity.
c. Issue 3 – Dishonour of Cheque: The essential requirement of the
offence under section 138 NI act is that the cheque has to be
dishonoured; and the cheque in question must not have been
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 11/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
encashed upon subsequent presentation. The bank return memo
records state that the cheque in question has been returned
dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The defence has
led no evidence to contradict the same and hence, this ingredient
also stands satisfied as against the Accused. Hence, this issue is
also decided in favour of the complainant and the cheque has been
proved to be dishonoured.
d. Issue 4 – Legal Notice: The essential requirement of the offence
under section 138 NI act is that notice on the accused demanding
the amount of cheque shall be issued by the complainant. Service
of the legal notice is the legal fiction which constitutes the major
ingredient of the offence u/s-138 NI Act. The objective of serving
legal demand notice to the Accused before filing the case is to
allow the accused to make the payment. As regards the service of
legal demand notice, the Complainant has sent the same to the
Accused. That the Accused has in his notice of accusation u/s 251
Cr.P.C denied receiving the legal demand notice and also in the
statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Sec-281 Cr.P.C. The
accused has admitted that his address is correct as mentioned on
the legal notice. The accused has also not led any positive evidence
to prove that the legal notice was not served on him, nor any
evidence to prove that the address on the legal notice is incorrect.
The sec. 27 of the general clauses act provides for the presumption
for the service. At this stage, reliance can be placed on the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alavi
Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007 (6) SCC 555 while
discussing the true intent behind the service of legal demand notice
as a precursor to the launch of prosecution held that the service of
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 12/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
summons of the court is opportunity enough for the accused to pay
the cheque amount and evade prosecution and any accused who
fails to pay the amount within 15 days of the service of summons,
clearly cannot protect himself/herself behind the technical demand
of non-service of legal notice. Thus, in absence of any evidence
against the presumption of service and admission of the accused
with respect to address being correct, this issue is also decided in
favour of the complainant and the service of legal notice has been
proved.
e. Issue 5 – Non-Payment within 15 Days: The essential
requirement of the offence under section 138 NI act is that upon
issuance of the legal notice, the complainant must not have paid the
whole of the cheque amount. In the present case, after the issue no.
4 is against the accused, the case of the accused is that he does not
have any liability towards the complainant in form of cheque
amount and his cheque was misused. Hence, it is an admitted
position that no payment for the cheque in question was made and
thus this ingredient of non-payment within 15 days also stands
satisfied. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the
complainant and the cheque has been proved to be not paid by the
accused despite service of notice.
9. Issue 6 : Defence of the Accused and Rebuttal of Presumption: The
accused had sought to bring on record the defense that the accused had no
relationship with the complainant, no transaction was committed, the
cheques were misused. In the present case, the accused had made
following attempts towards rebuttal of the evidence against him; and with
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 13/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi
the following observations, it is held that the issue no. 6 is decided
against the complainant and in favour of the accused:-
a. Lack of Documentary Evidence for Loan Disbursal: The
complainant claimed that he extended a Rs. 1.5 lakh loan to the
accused in March 2016, and his mother provided an additional Rs.
2 lakh (Rs. 1 lakh in May 2015 and Rs. 1 lakh in January 2016),
totaling Rs. 3.5 lakh. The three cheques in question were allegedly
issued to partly repay the Rs. 1.5 lakh loan. However, the
complainant’s evidence to substantiate the loan’s disbursal is
critically deficient:
i. The complainant asserted that the Rs. 1.5 lakh loan was
given in cash, withdrawn from ATM or cheque transactions.
During cross-examination, he could not specify the dates,
amounts, or sources of these withdrawals, despite promising
to produce bank statements and salary slips.
ii. His failure to produce these documents, citing the matter’s
age, is unconvincing. The complainant did not make any
efforts to bring the bank records himself, passbook or
summon the bank witness with the record. The
non-production of bank statements or withdrawal records
undermines the claim that he had the financial capacity to
disburse Rs. 1.5 lakh in cash.
iii. The Rs. 2 lakh loan from the complainant’s mother is even
less substantiated. The complainant admitted that his mother,
a housewife, had no income or Income Tax Return (ITR)
filings, raising doubts about her ability to lend such a
significant amount. He did not examine her as a witness or
provide any documentary evidence (e.g., her bank records)
to corroborate this loan. Consequently, the Rs. 2 lakh claim
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 14/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiis irrelevant to the cheques in question and appears
fabricated to inflate the alleged debt.
iv. The absence of contemporaneous records, such as loan
agreements, receipts, or bank transfers, weakens the
complainant’s case.
v. He could not recall specific visits to Modi Nagar in 2017,
where the loan was allegedly disbursed, admitting only a
possible visit in June. This vagueness undermines his claim
of personally handing over the cash.
vi. He admitted not declaring the Rs. 1.5 lakh loan in his ITR,
which, while not fatal, raises questions about the
transaction’s legitimacy, especially for a tax-paying salaried
employee.
b. Adverse Inference for Non-Production of Bank Statements:
The complainant’s repeated failure to produce his bank statements,
despite undertaking to do so, invites an adverse inference under
Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision
allows the court to presume that evidence withheld by a party
would be unfavorable to their case. As held in John K. John vs.
Tom Varghese (2007) 13 SCC 186, non-production of critical
documents, such as bank records, can undermine the complainant’s
claim in a Section 138 case. The complainant’s bank statements
would have shown whether he withdrew Rs. 1.5 lakh in cash
during March 2016 or received payments from the accused, as
alleged by the defense. His refusal to produce these records, despite
specific suggestions during cross-examination, suggests that they
might contradict his claim of disbursing the loan or not receiving
repayments. The complainant’s explanation that the records were
untraceable due to the matter’s age is implausible, given that the
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 15/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiloan was allegedly given in 2016, and the complaint was filed in
2018. This evasion casts doubt on the veracity of his claims.
Further the bank statements were required to prove the payments
received by the accused to the complainant. In the cross
examination, when the counsel for the accused had questioned the
complainant about the payments being received, the complainant
gave evasive replies and did not deny the same. The complainant
stated that he would have to go through the bank records, but the
complainant did not bring any such bank records. In sum, the
complainant’s failure to provide documentary evidence, coupled
with his evasive responses and non-production of bank records,
fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a legally enforceable
debt of Rs. 1.5 lakh existed at the time of cheque presentation.
c. Accused’s Successful Rebuttal of the Section 139 Presumption:
i. Admission of Cheques and Loan: The accused admitted
signing the three cheques (Ex. CW-1/1 to CW-1/3) and
filling particulars except the dates, confirming they were
issued as security for a Rs. 1.5 lakh loan taken in 2017. This
admission triggers the Section 139 presumption that the
cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt. However,
the accused’s defense hinges on two key claims: (i) the loan
was only Rs. 1.5 lakh, not Rs. 3.5 lakh, and (ii) the loan was
fully repaid through online transfers and cash, rendering the
cheques’ presentation a misuse.
ii. Evidence of Repayment through Bank Statements: The
accused introduced bank statements (Ex. CW-1/DX1) from
his SBI (A/c No. 35051924592) and IDBI (A/c No.
0338104000016375) accounts, showing payments totaling
Rs. 1,33,161 between 28-02-2017 and 17-04-2018. The total
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 16/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhiamount (Rs. 1,33,161) is close to the Rs. 1.5 lakh loan,
suggesting substantial repayment. The accused claimed
additional cash payments, which, if true, could account for
the remaining balance, including interest at 5% per month
(as alleged by him). While the complainant objected to these
statements for lacking certification under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act (required for electronic evidence), their
probative value is not entirely negated. The complainant did
not dispute the authenticity of the account numbers or claim
that the payments were made to a different account. His
response–“I cannot comment if the accused has made the
payment… I can comment after going through the bank
statement”–indicates an inability to refute the payments’
occurrence. Had the complainant produced his bank
statements, he could have clarified whether these amounts
were received, but his failure to do so strengthens the
accused’s case.
d. Cheques Issued as Security: The accused’s claim that the cheques
were issued as security, not for an existing liability, is plausible. He
admitted signing the cheques but disputed the dates, suggesting
they were filled in by the complainant. This aligns with the practice
of issuing blank cheques as security, common in informal loan
transactions. As per Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC
197, cheques issued as security can attract Section 138 liability if
the debt remains unpaid at the time of presentation. However, if the
accused proves the debt was discharged, the liability ceases. The
accused’s bank statements, showing payments close to the loan
amount, support his claim that the debt was substantially repaid
before the cheques were presented on 19-06-2018. The
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 17/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhicomplainant’s failure to deny these payments or produce
counter-evidence suggests the cheques were presented after the
debt was discharged, constituting misuse.
e. Preponderance of Probabilities: As per Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan,
the accused need not prove repayment beyond reasonable doubt but
must establish a probable defense. The accused achieved this
through:
i. Bank statements showing significant payments, which the
complainant could not refute.
ii. Cross-examination exposing the complainant’s lack of
evidence for the loan’s disbursal and non-repayment.
iii. The complainant’s non-production of bank statements,
inviting an adverse inference that they would have shown
receipt of payments.
iv. The accused’s decision not to lead defense evidence is not
fatal, as Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418
holds that the presumption can be rebutted through
cross-examination and the complainant’s evidence. The
accused’s consistent claim of repayment, supported by bank
records and the complainant’s evasive responses, creates a
preponderance of probabilities that the Rs. 1.5 lakh loan was
repaid.
10.Conclusion and Reason for decision:
a. The Issue no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the
complainant. In the issue no. 6, The accused was tacitly able to
rebut the presumption drawn against him by fracturing the case of
the complainant by rigorous cross examination to expose the latentCC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 18/ 19
In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhidefects, whereas the complainant has failed to discharge the burden
of proving that the accused owed a legally enforceable debt or that
the cheque was issued to discharge such a liability.
b. The accused is able to cross the threshold of preponderance of
probabilities to prove his innocence and the complainant was
unable to establish his case for setting up statutory presumption
against the accused, due to failure of proving the transaction and
the non examination of key witnesses. Hence, the benefit of doubt
has to be extended to the accused, and thus the case of the
complainant does not survive the rigours of trial.
11.Order:
a. The accused Ravinder Kumar Joshi is acquitted of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act.
b. The bail bonds of the accused and the sureties (in any), that are
already filed in the court for the purpose of bail, are retained for the
purpose of section 437 A Cr.P.C for the period of six months from
today.
c. The signed copy of the judgement be uploaded on the CIS
immediately.
d. Let the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
e. Pronounced in open court and in presence of both the parties/
or their Counsels. (DIVYAM LILA)
Municipal Magistrate, East District
Karkardooma Court/Delhi
Date: 13.06.2025____________________end of the document__________________________
CC no. 3551/2018 Shubrat Kumar Rout vs Ravindr Kumar Joshi page 19/ 19