Full Order Text
Interim Order 6 · 10 Apr 2026 · CNR DLCT020306772025
Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT Pdf Text: CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 1 - IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT-04, DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI Presided over by: Sh. Danveer CC No.: 11544/2025 Unique Case ID No.: DLCT020306772025 In the matter of: Mr. Anurag Verma, S/o Mr. O.O. Verma, R/o E-508, 5th Floor, Plot No. 89, Narwana CGHS, Patparganj, IP Extension, Delhi-110092. …Complainant Versus Mr. Pankaj Gautam, S/o Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Gautam, R/o 414, Green View Apartments, Pocket-2, Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. …Accused Date of registration 04.08.2025 Offence complained Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Plea of Accused (Guilty/Not guilty) Not guilty Date of filing 29.07.2025 Date of decision 10.04.2026 Method of trial Summary Final order (Conviction/Acquittal) Conviction Offences proved (if any) Sec. 138 NI Act -- 1 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE .......................................................................................................................... - 2 - TABLE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD ............................................................................................................... - 3 - COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE.......................................................................................................................... - 4 - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED ........................................................................................................................... - 4 - DEFENCE EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................................... - 5 - FINAL ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................................... - 5 - LAW ON THE POINT ................................................................................................................................... - 5 - INGREDIENT(S) IN DISPUTE ........................................................................................................................ - 6 - FINDINGS ON APPLYING THE LAW TO THE PRESENT FACTS ......................................................................... - 7 - FINAL DECISION ......................................................................................................................................... - 9 - BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The version of the complainant is that the accused and the complainant shared friendly relations. It is averred that on account of friendly relations, the complainant advanced multiple sums of money as friendly loans to the accused at a rate of interest of 24 % per annum, and a total of Rs. 209,051/- was advanced by the complainant to the accused. It is stated that the said advancing of money has been through various transactions that took place through banking channels. The case of the complainant is that the accused had repaid only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in two transactions, and to discharge the pending liability of loan and interest, the accused had issued a cheque to the complainant bearing cheque no. 000007 dated 06.05.2025, drawn on -- 2 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 3 - Kotak Mahindra Bank, in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘cheque-in-question’). The complainant then states to have presented the cheque-in-question for payment, but the same was returned by their banker as dishonoured with the remarks ‘account closed’. Thereafter, the complainant states to have served a legal demand notice on the accused calling on them to pay the amount of the cheque-in-question. The case of the complainant is that the same was not paid within 15 days of the receipt of the said demand notice by the accused, and hence, the present complaint came to be filed alleging the commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘NI Act’). 2. When the accused entered appearance, substance of accusations was stated to him, to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’. He stated that he owed the amount to the complainant and that the cheque-in-question bears his signatures. Further, that he needs some time to pay the amount and had not paid the same to the complainant earlier as the complainant had abused him. TABLE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD 3. In compliance to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State Of Gujarat (2025 INSC 1433)”, the table of evidence of the case is as follows: Witnesses Sr. No. Witness Identification number Name of the witness Description 1. CW-1 Sh. Anurag Verma Complainant -- 3 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 4 - Documents Sr. No. Document Identification number Proved by 1. Ex. CW-1/1 (Colly.) (Bank statement of the complainant) CW-1 2. Ex. CW-1/2 (Cheque in question) CW-1 3. Ex. CW-1/3 (Bank return memo) CW-1 4. Ex. CW-1/4 (Legal demand notice) CW-1 5. Ex. CW-1/5 (Postal receipt) CW-1 6. Ex. CW-1/6 (Tracking report) CW-1 COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE 4. The complainant became a witness for their case (as CW-1). The examination-in-chief of the complainant has been through affidavit as per Sec. 145 of the NI Act. Considering the fact that the accused had in substance, admitted the liability, the court had not granted the opportunity to cross-examine suo-moto. Further, no steps were taken and no willingness to cross-examine the witness was stated and hence, the examination in chief of the complainant remained the evidence of CW-1. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and their statement under Sec. 313 r/w Sec. 281 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. As per the accused, he had friendly relations with the complainant and had approached the complainant for a friendly loans on various intervals which were extended by the complainant and that some of them were partly repaid. It was denied that the rate of interest was 24 % per annum. The accused admitted that a total sum of Rs. 209,051/- was transferred by the complainant to him for the loans. Further, the accused admitted to have issued the cheque-in- -- 4 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 5 - question to the complainant, but stated that it was without having filled the name of payee and date. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 6. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence. FINAL ARGUMENTS 7. Ld. Counsel for Complainant submitted that all the requirements of Sec. 138 NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case and that their case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been further argued that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence and rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act, and that therefore, the accused is guilty of offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act. It has also been argued that the accused had admitted his liability and that merely stating that the accused does not plead guilty to the offence does not change the situation and does not take away the liability. 8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that the accused admits to owe the amount to the complainant but due to financial constraints, he could not make the payment. Further, that the pleading not guilty to the charge by the accused was for the same reason. LAW ON THE POINT 9. On a reading of the provisions of Section 138 NI Act it is clear that the ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under the provision are : (i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by them in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account, and the same must have been presented for payment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; -- 5 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 6 - (ii) The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; (iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid; either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice; If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied then the person who has drawn the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence. Reference in this context may be made, inter alia, to “Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 745]”. INGREDIENT(S) IN DISPUTE 10. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the ingredients mentioned at (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) above. This is because drawing of the cheque by the accused and the presentation of the same by the complainant are not disputed. Further, the return of the cheque as dishonoured by bank is not disputed (reference in this context may be made to the bank returning -- 6 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 7 - memo, non-disputing of the document by the accused and the provisions of Sec. 146 of the NI Act). 11. Further, ingredient (iv) above also stands satisfied as the accused did not dispute their address on the legal notice. Further, the accused did not dispute the factum of receipt of legal demand notice and reference in this context may be made to question no. 10 in the statement of the accused under Sec. 351 BNSS, and also to statement of the accused at the time of framing of notice under Sec. 274 BNSS. Further, the ingredient no. (v) is also satisfied as the factum of non-payment in response to the legal demand notice is also not disputed. 12. In the opinion of this court, there is no dispute as to satisfaction of ingredient (ii) as well, i.e., existence of legally enforceable debt/other liability. This aspect is explained further hereinafter. FINDINGS ON APPLYING THE LAW TO THE PRESENT FACTS 13. The law on the point of existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability is well settled. In this context, the provisions of Sec. 139 NI Act r/w Sec. 118 (a) NI Act assume importance. Sec. 139 NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that they received the cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Section 118 (a) NI Act raises a presumption that a negotiable instrument (including a cheque) has been drawn or made for consideration. 14. Both the provisions (Sec. 139 and 118 (a) NI Act) belong to the popular class of ‘shall be presumed’ which is clearly defined in Sec. 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18721. As per the said provision of the evidence law, the court has to mandatorily presume a fact which is stated by any law to be 1 Corresponding provision under Sec. 2(l) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. -- 7 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 8 - ‘shall presumed’, but the presumption is taken away if the contrary is proved. In this context, the accused may lift the presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability in either of the two ways; by shaking the case of the complainant in this respect or by leading positive defence evidence in the same regard. 15. The law on the point of standard of proof applicable for the defence is also well settled. Reference in this context may be made to the definition of ‘proved’ as per the evidence law2: ““proved”.—A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists;” Further reference in the context of presumptions under NI Act, may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors., 2008 (8) SCALE 680”, which was relied on by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898)”. In the said judgments, it was held that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumptions by the defence is that of preponderance of probabilities. Whether in a case, the defence has been able to discharge that onus or not is a question of fact, which has to be examined on case to case basis. 16. The first examination is in the lines of finding out whether the defence has been able to point out any major contradictions or infirmities in the case of the complainant. Secondly, whether the defence has led any positive defence evidence to rebut the presumptions that exist in favour of the complainant. 2 Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 2(j) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. -- 8 of 9 -- CC No.: 11544/2025 Anurag Verma vs. Pankaj Gautam - 9 - 17. At the time of framing of notice, the accused admitted to owe the amount to the complainant, but stated that he does not plead guilty. In the opinion of this court, merely by stating that the person does not plead guilty, the force of the presumptions is not affected in any manner. There is no evidentiary dispute as to the liability. The complainant has filed the complaint, his affidavit of evidence along-with bank account statement and there is nothing to doubt that part. Further and importantly, the complainant carries presumptions with him as already discussed. The evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged and the presumptions have remained unrebutted. 18. There is nothing on record that casts a doubt as to the existence of legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant and against the accused. Inability to repay, as argued on behalf of the defence, is not a defence that can amount to taking away the liability for the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act. 19. The presumptions that exist in favour of the complainant have not been rebutted. No reasonable doubt has been created in the case of the complainant by the defence. Further, no positive evidence has been led. FINAL DECISION 20. In light of the above, the accused ‘Mr. Pankaj Gautam’ is held guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act in the present case. 21. The details of the office of DLSA, Central, THC have been annexed separately. Pronounced in open court. Total Pages: 09 (Danveer) JMFC (NI Act)-04, Central, THC 10.04.2026 -- 9 of 9 --