Delhi District Court
Rohit Nawaria vs Lal Ji Thakur on 21 February, 2026
DLND010029662025 Page 1 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
IN THE COURT OF SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER, ASJ-05,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH Criminal Appeal No. 136/2025
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
SINGH
LALER ROHIT NAWARIA
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:49:43
S/o Shri Suraj Mal Nawaria
+0530
R/o 594A, C-Block, Budh Nagar,
Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012
... Appellant/Convict
(Sh. Vaibhav Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant)
VERSUS
LAL JI THAKUR
S/o Shri Sukhan Thakur
R/o H-181, Block-H,
Naraina Vihar, Delhi-110093
... Respondent/Complainant
(Sh. Vipin Shishtra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent)
Date of Filing : 23.04.2025
Arguments heard on : 30.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 21.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374
Cr.P.C/415(3) BNSS challenging the judgment of conviction dated
13.02.2025 and the order on sentence dated 11.03.2025 passed by the
DLND010029662025 Page 2 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Digital
Court-1, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.
SAURABH
2979/2022. Through the impugned judgment, the Learned Trial Court
PARTAP
SINGH
LALER convicted the Appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act“) and
SINGH LALER
Date: 2026.02.21
17:49:47 +0530
directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of the cheque i.e. 10.01.2022 till the date of judgment
i.e. 13.02.2025, within 30 days from the date of sentence dated
11.03.2025, failing which the convict was to undergo simple
imprisonment of one month in default.
1.2 After careful perusal of the appeal record, consideration of
arguments advanced by both sides, and thorough examination of the
evidence on record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the
considered view that the Learned Trial Court has correctly
appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted the Appellant. The
judgment is well-reasoned, legally sound, and based on cogent
evidence. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed for the detailed
reasons that follow.
2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
DLND010029662025 Page 3 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint case and
subsequent conviction are as follows:
2.1 The Respondent/Complainant Shri Lal Ji Thakur filed a complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act on 16.03.2022 against the
SAURABH
PARTAP
SINGH LALER
Appellant/Accused Rohit Nawaria alleging that in the first week of
July, 2021, the Appellant had taken a friendly loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-
Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
SINGH LALER
Date: 2026.02.21
17:49:50 +0530
(Rupees One Lakh Only) from the Complainant for his personal needs
and requirements 1. In order to discharge this liability, the Appellant
issued Cheque No. 921319 dated 10.01.2022 drawn on State Bank of
India in favour of the Complainant 2.
2.2 On presentation of the said cheque with the banker, the same was
dishonored vide returning memo dated 13.01.2022 with the remarks
“payment stopped by drawer” 3. Thereafter, the Complainant caused a
legal demand notice dated 20.01.2022 to be issued to the Appellant
under Section 138(b) of the NI Act, calling upon him to pay the
1
Judgment of Learned JMFC, Patiala House Court, New Delhi dated
13.02.2025 in CC No. 2979/2022, Page 2, Para 2
2
Cheque No. 921319 dated 10.01.2022 drawn on State Bank of India –
Ex.CW1/1
3
Return Memo dated 13.01.2022 – Ex.CW1/2
DLND010029662025 Page 4 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice 4. Despite
receiving the legal demand notice, the Appellant failed and refused to
pay the cheque amount to the Complainant within the statutory period
Digitally
of 15 days.
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH
LALER
LALER
Date:
2026.02.21
2.3 Consequently, the Complainant filed the present complaint case
17:49:54
+0530under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was duly registered and
proceeded to trial.
3 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON SENTENCE
3.1 A. Proceedings Before the Learned Trial Court
3.1.1 After careful perusal of the pre-summoning evidence, the
Learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section
138 of the NI Act and issued summons to the Appellant. The
Appellant moved an application under Section 145(2) of the NI
Act, and thereafter, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed
against him for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.1.2 At the stage of framing of notice, the Appellant made the
following admissions and denials:
4
Legal Demand Notice dated 20.01.2022 – Ex.CW1/3
DLND010029662025 Page 5 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR3.1.2.1 Signatures on the cheque in question – Admitted
3.1.2.2 Filling up the material particulars – Denied
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
LALER
SINGH
LALER
Date:
3.1.2.3 Receiving the legal demand notice – Denied
2026.02.21
17:49:59
+05303.1.2.4 Whether his correct postal address was mentioned on
the legal demand notice – Admitted3.1.2.5 Genuineness of the returning memo – Admitted
3.1.3 In his defence, the Appellant stated that he did not know the
Complainant and had no liability towards him. He claimed that the
cheque in question was handed over to one Mr. Rakesh and he did
not know how the cheque came into possession of the
Complainant. He further stated that he had even lodged a
complaint against the Complainant alleging misuse of the cheque
in question, and that a false and fabricated complaint had been
filed against him.
3.2 Evidence Led During Trial
3.2.1 In the post-summoning evidence, the Complainant Lal Ji
Thakur examined himself as the sole complainant witness (CW-1).
He tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and
relied upon the following documents:
DLND010029662025 Page 6 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR3.2.1.1 Cheque No. 921319 – Ex.CW1/1
3.2.1.2 Returning Memo dated 13.01.2022 – Ex.CW1/2
Digitally
signed by 3.2.1.3 Legal Demand Notice dated 20.01.2022 – Ex.CW1/3
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
3.2.1.4 Postal Receipt – Ex.CW1/4
17:50:02
+05303.2.1.5 Tracking Report – Ex.CW1/5
3.2.1.6 Complaint – Ex.CW1/6
3.2.2 During cross-examination by the Appellant’s counsel, the
Complainant stated that he had known the Appellant for the last
10-15 years and had given the loan amount in cash. He did not
remember the exact date of advancing the loan but confirmed it
was given in July, 2021. He stated that no other witness was
present at the time of advancement of the loan. The Complainant
further stated that he knew one person named Bhagat Singh but
did not know any person named Sanjeev. He denied the suggestion
that the Appellant had dealings with Bhagat Singh and that the
impugned cheque was handed over to the Complainant by Bhagat
Singh.
3.2.3 Thereafter, the statement of the Appellant under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he stated that he did not know
DLND010029662025 Page 7 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURthe Complainant and did not take any friendly loan from him. In
this statement he stated that he had taken loan from one Bhogat
Singh of Rs.15,000/- and had given five cheques to him.
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
3.2.4 The Appellant opted to lead defence evidence but on
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
11.02.2025, he stated that he did not wish to examine any witness,
17:50:06
+0530 and consequently, the defence evidence was closed.
3.3 Findings and Conviction by the Learned Trial Court
3.3.1 After hearing final arguments from both sides and carefully
considering the evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court
delivered its judgment dated 13.02.2025. The Learned Trial Court
meticulously examined whether all the ingredients of Section 138
of the NI Act were satisfied in the present case. The Court held as
follows:
3.3.1.1 On execution and presentation of cheque: The Court
found that it was not in dispute that the cheque in question was
drawn by the Appellant from his bank account, as the
Appellant had himself admitted his signatures on the cheque.
The presentation of the cheque by the Complainant and the
genuineness of the return memo were also not disputed by the
Appellant.
DLND010029662025 Page 8 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
3.3.1.2 On service of legal demand notice: Though the
SAURABH
PARTAP Appellant denied receiving the legal demand notice, he
SINGH LALER
admitted that the address mentioned on the legal demand notice
Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
SINGH LALER was his correct address. The Learned Trial Court, after
Date: 2026.02.21
17:50:09 +0530
examining the legal demand notice (Ex.CW1/3), postal receipt
(Ex.CW1/4), and tracking report (Ex.CW1/5), found that the
notice was delivered at the address of the Appellant on
22.01.2022. Relying upon the successive interpretation of
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section
114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Mohd & Anr.
(2007) 6 SCC 555 and Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala
Krishnaiah (2014) SLT 524, the Learned Trial Court held that
there arose a presumption of service of legal notice in favour of
the Complainant. The Court further noted that not even a single
question was put to the Complainant during cross-examination
on this aspect, and thus, an adverse inference was raised
against the Appellant.
3.3.1.3 On legally enforceable debt and presumption under
Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act: The Learned Trial
Court noted that the Appellant had admitted his signatures on
DLND010029662025 Page 9 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
the cheque in question at the time of framing of notice. The
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
Court accordingly raised the statutory presumptions under
PARTAP LALER
SINGH
LALER
Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:13 +0530
Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act in favour of the
Complainant, holding that the cheque was issued for
consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
The burden then shifted upon the Appellant to rebut these
presumptions on the standard of preponderance of
probabilities.
3.3.1.4 On rebuttal of presumption by the Appellant: The
Learned Trial Court examined whether the Appellant was able
to rebut the statutory presumptions and found that he had failed
to do so. The Court noted that the Appellant, in his defence,
stated that he had given the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, but no
suggestion in this regard was put to the Complainant during
cross-examination. The Complainant was asked about Bhagat
Singh and Sanjeev, but there was no mention of any person
named Rakesh. The Appellant also claimed that he did not
know the Complainant, but the Complainant had stated in
cross-examination that he had known the Appellant for 10-15
years, and no suggestion was put to challenge this testimony.
Most importantly, the Appellant was given an opportunity to
DLND010029662025 Page 10 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
lead defence evidence but refused to examine himself or any
other witness in his defence, thereby depriving himself of the
opportunity to prove his defence and subject himself to cross-
examination.
3.3.2 The Learned Trial Court also noted that the Appellant
claimed to have lodged a complaint against the Complainant for
misuse of the cheque, but no such complaint was produced on
record, nor was any witness examined to prove this fact.
Digitally
signed by
3.3.3 Accordingly, the Learned Trial Court held that the
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
SINGH
LALER Appellant had failed to create a reasonable doubt over the veracity
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:17
+0530 of the Complainant’s case by balance of probabilities and had
failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
The Court found that all the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI
Act were fully proved and accordingly convicted the Appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3.4 Order on Sentence
3.4.1 On 11.03.2025, the Learned Trial Court passed the order on
sentence after hearing arguments from both sides. The counsel for
the Appellant pleaded for leniency on the ground that the
Appellant was an innocent person facing conviction for the first
DLND010029662025 Page 11 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURtime and was the bread earner of his family. The counsel for the
Complainant, on the contrary, submitted that the present case was
an old one, the liability pertained to the year 2022, and that the
Appellant deserved maximum punishment.
Digitally
3.4.2 After considering the totality of the circumstances and
signed by
SAURABH
noting that the liability of the Appellant towards the Complainant
SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:50:21
+0530
regarding the present cheque was pending since 2022, the Learned
Trial Court ordered the Appellant to pay compensation to the
Complainant for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Only) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of the cheque i.e. 10.01.2022 till the date of judgment i.e.
13.02.2025, within 30 days from the date of sentence dated
11.03.2025, failing which the convict was to undergo simple
imprisonment of 1 month in default.
3.4.3 It is pertinent to note that no substantive sentence of
imprisonment was awarded by the Learned Trial Court. Only
compensation with interest and default imprisonment in case of
non-payment of compensation was awarded, which is in
accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act read
with Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
DLND010029662025 Page 12 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
3.5 APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
3.5.1 Before proceeding to the merits of the appeal, it is
necessary to first deal with the application filed by the Appellant
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of
10 days in filing the present appeal.
3.5.2 The Appellant has submitted that there is a delay of 10 days
in filing the appeal due to the reason that though he had applied
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH for certified copy of the judgment and order on sentence on
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH
LALER
LALER
Date:
22.03.2025, the same was not ready till 20.04.2025. An affidavit to
2026.02.21
17:50:24
+0530 this effect has been filed by the Appellant, and a copy of the
certified copy receipt dated 22.03.2025 bearing CA ID Number
2503003776 has been placed on record.
3.5.3 I have considered the application for condonation of delay
along with the affidavit and the documentary evidence placed on
record. The delay in filing the appeal appears to be on account of
the certified copy not being ready in time, which is beyond the
control of the Appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor
willful. The interest of justice demands that the application for
condonation of delay be allowed so that the matter can be
adjudicated upon on its merits.
DLND010029662025 Page 13 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
3.5.4 Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay of 10
days in filing the appeal is hereby ALLOWED, and the delay of 10
days is hereby CONDONED.
3.6 GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence on the following principal
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH
PARTAP grounds:
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:28
+0530 3.6.1 That the impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Court
is illegal, incorrect in law, and against the facts and circumstances
of the case.
3.6.2 That the Learned Trial Court passed the impugned
judgment and order on sentence in a mechanical manner and
without applying judicial mind.
3.6.3 That the Learned Trial Court erred by not taking into
consideration the discrepancies and flaws in the testimony of the
Complainant in favour of the Appellant.
3.6.4 That the Respondent/Complainant did not support his case
on the ground of friendly loan through any other documents such
as bank statement showing withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash.
DLND010029662025 Page 14 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
3.6.5 That there was no evidence to show that the Appellant took
the loan from the Complainant, and thus liability was not proved.
3.6.6 That the Appellant never knew the
Digitally
Respondent/Complainant.
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
That the Respondent/Complainant did not furnish any
LALER
SINGH
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
3.6.7
17:50:32
+0530documents showing entry in passbook for withdrawal of money of
Rs. 1,00,000/- in one go.
3.6.8 That no eye witness was present at the time of alleged
advancement of loan.
3.6.9 That the Appellant had given the disputed cheque to one
Mr. Rakesh, and the same has been misused by the Complainant.
3.6.10 That the Appellant had taken loan from one Bhagat Singh
and had given the said cheque to Bhagat Singh, who failed to
return the same.
3.6.11 That the Appellant had rebutted the presumptions under
Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act through cross-examination of
the Complainant.
3.7 ARGUMENTS
DLND010029662025 Page 15 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR3.7.1 Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Appellant
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant advanced the following
arguments in support of the appeal:
3.7.1.1 That the Appellant had never taken any friendly loan
from the Respondent/Complainant. The Appellant submitted
that he did not even know the Respondent/Complainant and
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH
PARTAP that the entire case was false and fabricated.
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:37
+0530
3.7.1.2 That the Appellant had actually taken a loan of Rs.
15,000/- from one Bhagat Singh, who provided him an amount
of Rs. 14,000/- via cheque after deducting interest of Rs.
1,000/-. In order to secure this loan, the Appellant had provided
5 security cheques to Bhagat Singh. The Appellant repaid the
entire amount to Bhagat Singh and demanded the return of the
security cheques, but Bhagat Singh stated that he was unable to
find the cheques and deliberately did not return them. One of
these security cheques has been misused by the Complainant in
the present case.
3.7.1.3 Alternatively, the Appellant submitted that he had
given the disputed cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, and he did not
DLND010029662025 Page 16 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURknow how the cheque came into possession of the
Complainant.
SAURABH
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP
3.7.1.4 That the Complainant did not produce any evidence
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:41
to show that he had given Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to the
+0530Appellant. No bank statement showing withdrawal of such a
large amount was produced. No witness was present at the time
of alleged advancement of loan. The Complainant could not
even recall the exact date of advancing the loan.
3.7.1.5 That these discrepancies and gaps in the evidence of
the Complainant should have been appreciated in favour of the
Appellant by the Learned Trial Court.
3.7.1.6 That the Appellant had rebutted the presumptions
under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act through the cross-
examination of the Complainant and through his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
3.7.1.7 That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside
and the Appellant is entitled to acquittal.
3.7.2 Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the
Respondent/Complainant
DLND010029662025 Page 17 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant
advanced the following arguments in opposition to the appeal:
3.7.2.1 That the Appellant had duly admitted his signatures
on the cheque in question. Once the execution of the cheque is
admitted, the statutory presumptions under Section 118(a) and
Section 139 of the NI Act are mandatorily raised in favour of
the holder of the cheque.
3.7.2.2 That the burden then shifts upon the Appellant to
rebut these presumptions on the standard of preponderance of
probabilities. The Appellant has miserably failed to discharge
this burden.
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:50:45
+0530 3.7.2.3 That the defence set up by the Appellant is wholly
inconsistent, contradictory, and not supported by any evidence
whatsoever. At the time of framing of notice, the Appellant
stated that he had given the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, but
during trial and in the present appeal, he has taken a completely
different defence that he had given the cheque to one Bhagat
Singh. Not a single suggestion regarding Rakesh was put to the
Complainant during cross-examination. Similarly, no evidence
regarding the alleged loan from Bhagat Singh was produced.
DLND010029662025 Page 18 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR3.7.2.4 That most significantly, the Appellant failed to enter
the witness box to prove his defence and subject himself to the
rigours of cross-examination. This is fatal to the defence of the
Appellant.
3.7.2.5 That the Appellant also did not make any effort to
summon either Bhagat Singh or Sanjeev or Rakesh as
witnesses to prove his defence. The defence raised by the
Appellant is completely devoid of evidence and has been
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
rightly rejected by the Learned Trial Court.
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH
LALER Date: 3.7.2.6 That the legal demand notice was duly served upon
2026.02.21
17:50:48
+0530 the Appellant at his correct and admitted address, as evidenced
by postal receipts and tracking report. The presumption under
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act stands in favour of the
Complainant. The Appellant’s bare denial carries no
evidentiary value.
3.7.2.7 That minor inability to recall the exact date of
advancement of loan does not discredit the transaction,
especially when the liability was acknowledged by the
Appellant through issuance of the cheque in question. The
requirement of producing bank statement or having eye
DLND010029662025 Page 19 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
witnesses is not a statutory requirement under Section 138 of
the NI Act.
3.7.2.8 That the Learned Trial Court has correctly
appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted the Appellant.
All the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act stand duly
proved. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
infirmity and deserves to be upheld.
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:50:51
+0530
3.7.2.9 That the appeal is nothing but a dilatory tactic to
delay compliance with the lawful sentence and is liable to be
dismissed.
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the
Learned Counsel for both parties, perused the record of the Learned
Trial Court, examined the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2025 and
order on sentence dated 11.03.2025, and also gone through the
grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant.
4.2 Before proceeding to examine the specific grounds of appeal, it
would be appropriate to first discuss the legal position with regard to
DLND010029662025 Page 20 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and the
statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
4.3 A. Legal Framework: Ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act
4.3.1 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
provides for punishment in case of dishonour of cheque for
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH insufficiency of funds. For establishing the offence under Section
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH
LALER
LALER
Date:
138 of the NI Act, the following ingredients must be cumulatively
2026.02.21
17:50:55
+0530 satisfied:
4.3.2 The cheque in question must have been issued by the
accused in favour of the complainant to discharge a legally
enforceable debt or liability;
4.3.3 The cheque must have been presented before the bank for
encashment within three months from the date on which it is
drawn, or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
4.3.4 The cheque must have been returned by the bank unpaid,
either for insufficiency of funds or for any other reason mentioned
in the proviso to Section 138;
4.3.5 A demand must be made in writing by the payee or holder
in due course, by issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of
DLND010029662025 Page 21 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURthe cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the
bank regarding return of the cheque; and4.3.6 There must be failure on the part of the drawer to make
payment of the cheque amount to the payee or holder in due
course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
SINGH
LALER
Date:
4.3.7 This legal position has been consistently laid down by the
LALER 2026.02.21Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments
17:50:58
+0530including MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177,
Rangappa Vs. Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, and Basalingappa Vs.
Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418.
4.3.8 In the landmark judgment of MSR Leathers (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and
stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be
satisfied before dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence
and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque
ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of six
months from the date on which it is drawn, or within the period of
its validity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the
payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may
be, ought to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of
money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the
bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The third
DLND010029662025 Page 22 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURcondition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to
make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the
case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within
fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. It is only upon the
satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and
enumerated under the proviso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b)
and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to
Digitally
have been committed by the person issuing the cheque.”
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
PARTAP
Statutory Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI
PARTAP
4.4
SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:01
+0530Act
4.4.1 Section 118(a) of the NI Act provides:
“Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be
made:- (a) of consideration – that every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument,
when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.”
4.4.2 Section 139 of the NI Act provides:
“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.”
4.5 Both these presumptions are rebuttable presumptions. Once the
execution of a cheque is admitted or proved, the statutory
presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are mandatorily raised in
favour of the holder of the cheque. The burden then shifts upon the
DLND010029662025 Page 23 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
accused to rebut these presumptions. The standard of proof required
for rebutting the presumptions is that of preponderance of
probabilities, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa
(2019) 5 SCC 418 summarized the principles relating to Sections
Digitally
signed by
118(a) and 139 of the NI Act in the following manner:
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH
LALER
LALER
Date: “(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the
Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for discharge of
2026.02.21
17:51:05
+0530
any debt or legal liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable
presumption and onus is on the accused to raise the probable
defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is
that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on
evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials
submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only
from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by
reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness
box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposes an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden.”
4.7 It is important to note that while Section 139 imposes an
evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden, and while it is not
absolutely necessary for the accused to enter the witness box, the
quality and credibility of the defence raised by the accused would be
DLND010029662025 Page 24 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
significantly enhanced if the accused chooses to enter the witness box
and subject himself to cross-examination. Conversely, the failure of
the accused to enter the witness box despite raising a specific defence
would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while
assessing whether the accused has been able to rebut the statutory
presumptions.
5 Examination of the Present Case
With this legal framework in mind, this Court shall now examine
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
whether all the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH
satisfied in the present case, and whether the Appellant has been
Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:09
+0530able to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and
139 of the NI Act.
5.1 Ingredient No. 1: Execution of the cheque and legally enforceable
debt5.1.1 It is an admitted fact on record that the Appellant has signed
the cheque in question bearing No. 921319 dated 10.01.2022
drawn on State Bank of India for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
This admission was made by the Appellant at the time of framing
of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Trial
Court. The cheque in question has been exhibited as Ex.CW1/1.
DLND010029662025 Page 25 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
5.1.2 Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:51:12
+0530
are mandatorily raised in favour of the Complainant/holder of the
cheque. Accordingly, it is to be presumed that the cheque was
drawn for consideration and was issued in discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or liability.
5.1.3 The burden then shifts upon the Appellant to rebut these
presumptions on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
The crucial question is whether the Appellant has been able to
discharge this burden.
5.2 Rebuttal of Presumption by the Appellant
5.2.1 The Appellant has raised multiple and inconsistent defences
in the present case. At the time of framing of notice, the Appellant
stated that he had handed over the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh and
he did not know how the cheque came into possession of the
Complainant. However, in his grounds of appeal and during
arguments, the Appellant has taken a completely different defence
that he had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from one Bhagat Singh,
who provided him Rs. 14,000/- after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as
DLND010029662025 Page 26 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
interest, and that he had provided 5 security cheques to Bhagat
Singh, one of which has been misused in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH 5.2.2 This inconsistency in the defence itself raises serious doubts
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:51:18
about the credibility of the Appellant’s case. A truthful defence
+0530
would be consistent throughout. The shifting of the defence from
Rakesh to Bhagat Singh indicates that the Appellant is merely
trying different versions to escape liability without any basis in
truth.
5.2.3 More importantly, no evidence whatsoever has been
produced by the Appellant to substantiate either version of his
defence. The following facts are particularly noteworthy:
5.2.4 No suggestion regarding Rakesh during cross-examination:
Though the Appellant claimed at the time of framing of notice that
he had given the cheque to one Mr. Rakesh, not even a single
suggestion regarding Rakesh was put to the Complainant during
his cross-examination. The Complainant was asked about Bhagat
Singh and Sanjeev, but there was no mention of Rakesh. This is
fatal to the Appellant’s defence regarding Rakesh.
5.2.5 No evidence regarding Bhagat Singh: The Appellant
claimed that he had taken a loan from Bhagat Singh and had given
DLND010029662025 Page 27 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURthe cheque to him. However, no evidence was produced to prove
this transaction. The Appellant did not produce any loan
agreement, any receipt, any bank statement, or any other document
to show that he had taken a loan from Bhagat Singh. No witness
was examined to prove this fact.
5.2.6 Failure to summon Bhagat Singh or Sanjeev: Most
Digitally
significantly, the Appellant did not make any effort to summon
signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP
SAURABH
PARTAP
SINGH
either Bhagat Singh or Sanjeev as witnesses to prove his defence.
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21 If the Appellant had genuinely given the cheque to Bhagat Singh,
17:51:22
+0530
and if Bhagat Singh had indeed misused the cheque or handed it
over to the Complainant, then Bhagat Singh would have been the
most crucial witness for the defence. The failure to examine
Bhagat Singh gives rise to a strong adverse inference against the
Appellant under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that the Court may presume
that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if
produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.
5.2.7 Appellant did not enter the witness box: Most crucially, the
Appellant opted to lead defence evidence but thereafter stated that
he did not wish to examine any witness. The Appellant himself did
not enter the witness box to prove his defence and subject himself
DLND010029662025 Page 28 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURto the rigours of cross-examination. Though it is legally
permissible for an accused not to enter the witness box, the failure
to do so while raising a specific defence of having given the
cheque to a third party is a highly relevant circumstance. If the
SAURABH Digitally signedAppellant had genuinely given the cheque to Bhagat Singh or
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.02.21
LALER 17:51:26 +0530
Rakesh, the Appellant could have easily entered the witness box,
narrated the entire sequence of events, produced documentary
evidence, and subjected himself to cross-examination. His failure
to do so indicates that the defence is nothing but an afterthought
and a concocted story.
5.2.8 No complaint filed against the Complainant: The Appellant
claimed that he had lodged a complaint against the Complainant
for misuse of the cheque. However, no such complaint, no FIR, no
GD entry, or any other document was produced on record to
substantiate this claim. This again indicates that the defence is
false.
5.2.9 In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the Appellant
has failed to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate his
defence. The defence raised by the Appellant is completely bereft
of any evidence and is nothing but a bare and bald denial. Such a
defence cannot be said to have rebutted the statutory presumptions
DLND010029662025 Page 29 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURunder Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act even on the standard
of preponderance of probabilities.
5.2.10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma
Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 has held that the burden of proving the
Digitally signed
SAURABH
PARTAP
by SAURABH
PARTAP
SINGH LALER
non-existence of consideration is on the accused and the burden
SINGH Date:
LALER
2026.02.21
17:51:30
+0530
can be discharged by adducing direct evidence or by examining
the circumstances and the preponderance of probabilities. The
accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the
complainant in order to rebut the presumption.
5.2.11 In the present case, the Appellant has neither adduced any
direct evidence, nor has he been able to show any circumstances or
preponderance of probabilities in his favour. The Appellant has
also not been able to rely on any materials submitted by the
Complainant to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, the statutory
presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act remain
unrebutted and operate in full force in favour of the Complainant.
5.3 Alleged Discrepancies in the Evidence of the Complainant
5.3.1 The Appellant has sought to make much of the fact that the
Complainant could not recall the exact date of advancement of
DLND010029662025 Page 30 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURloan, that no bank statement was produced, and that no eye
witness was present at the time of alleged advancement of loan.
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
PARTAP
SINGH
PARTAP
SINGH LALER
Date:
5.3.2 These submissions are without any merit. Minor inability to
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:33
+0530
recall the exact date of advancement of loan does not discredit the
transaction, especially when the liability has been acknowledged
by the accused through issuance of the cheque. In the present case,
the Complainant has consistently stated that the loan was
advanced in the first week of July, 2021. The fact that he cannot
recall the exact date is not material. It is common human
experience that persons cannot recall exact dates of transactions
which took place several years ago, especially when the
transaction was between known persons and was of an informal
nature.
5.3.3 As regards the production of bank statement, it is not a
statutory requirement under Section 138 of the NI Act that the
complainant must produce bank statement showing withdrawal of
the loan amount. The case of the Complainant is that the loan was
advanced in cash. There is no legal prohibition on advancing loan
in cash. Moreover, once the statutory presumptions under Sections
118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are raised, it is for the accused to
rebut the same. The accused cannot discharge this burden by
DLND010029662025 Page 31 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURmerely pointing out that the complainant has not produced bank
Digitally signed
statement.
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
2026.02.21
LALER 17:51:37
+05305.3.4 Similarly, the absence of eye witness at the time of
advancement of loan is not fatal to the case of the Complainant.
Loans between known persons are often advanced in private
without any witnesses. The Complainant has categorically stated
that he had known the Appellant for 10-15 years. In such
circumstances, it is entirely natural that the loan would have been
advanced without any witness. Moreover, the requirement of
having witnesses to prove the transaction would defeat the very
object of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, which raise
presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque.
5.3.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 1975 has observed that the Act provides for a
presumption of discharge of legally recoverable debt and liability.
It is for the accused to rebut the same by raising the defence of
lack of consideration or collusion etc. by a preponderance of
probability. In the instant case, the accused has not been able to
rebut the said presumption.
5
Full bench
DLND010029662025 Page 32 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
5.3.6 Accordingly, the alleged discrepancies pointed out by the
Appellant in the evidence of the Complainant are not of such a
nature as would create any doubt about the credibility of the
Complainant’s case or would assist the Appellant in rebutting the
statutory presumptions.
5.4 Ingredient No. 2: Presentation of cheque within validity period
5.4.1 The cheque in question is dated 10.01.2022. The same was
Digitally
signed by
presented before the bank and was dishonored vide returning
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
LALER
memo dated 13.01.2022. The genuineness of the return memo has
SINGH
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:51:41
been admitted by the Appellant. Accordingly, it is clear that the
+0530cheque was presented within the period of its validity. This
ingredient is duly satisfied.
5.5 Ingredient No. 3: Service of legal demand notice
5.5.1 The Appellant has denied receiving the legal demand
notice. However, he has admitted that his correct postal address
was mentioned on the legal demand notice. The Complainant has
produced the legal demand notice dated 20.01.2022 (Ex.CW1/3),
postal receipt (Ex.CW1/4), and tracking report (Ex.CW1/5) on
record. On perusal of these documents, it is evident that the notice
DLND010029662025 Page 33 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURwas duly dispatched to the correct address of the Appellant and
was delivered on 22.01.2022.
5.5.2 Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides:
“Where any Central Act or Regulation made after
the commencement of this Act authorises or requires
any document to be served by post, whether the
expression ‘serve’ or either of the expressions ‘give’
or ‘send’ or any other expression is used, then, unless
a different intention appears, the service shall be
deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-
Digitally
paying and posting by registered post, a letter
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP
containing the document, and unless the contrary is
proved, to have been effected at the time at which
SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course
17:51:44
+0530of post.”
5.5.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs.
Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555 (Three-Judge
Bench) has held that if a notice has been sent by registered post to
the address given by the accused it is to be presumed that the
notice has been served on him unless the contrary is proved by the
accused. The burden is on the accused to prove that the notice was
not served on him or that it was not tendered to him.
5.5.4 Similarly, in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah
(2014) SLT 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if the
DLND010029662025 Page 34 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
demand notice is properly and correctly addressed, there is
presumption of service thereof. It is then for the accused to prove
that he did not receive the demand notice and this cannot be
accomplished by a mere denial.
5.5.5 In the present case, the legal demand notice was properly
and correctly addressed to the Appellant at his own admitted
Digitally
signed by
address. The postal receipt and tracking report clearly establish
SAURABH SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:47
+0530
that the notice was delivered at the address of the Appellant on
22.01.2022. Accordingly, the presumption under Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act operates in favour of the Complainant, and it
is to be presumed that the notice was duly served upon the
Appellant.
5.5.6 The Appellant has merely denied receiving the notice but
has not adduced any evidence to prove that the notice was not
received by him. A bare denial is not sufficient to rebut the
presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The
Appellant has not explained what happened to the notice if it was
delivered at his address. No postal official has been examined to
show that the delivery was not effected. In these circumstances,
the presumption of service operates in full force.
DLND010029662025 Page 35 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
5.5.7 Moreover, a very significant circumstance to be noted is
that not even a single question or suggestion was put to the
Complainant during cross-examination regarding the service of
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
2026.02.21
LALER 17:51:51
+0530legal demand notice. If the Appellant genuinely did not receive the
notice, his counsel would have put suggestions to the Complainant
in this regard. The complete absence of any such suggestion
strengthens the case of the Complainant.
5.5.8 Accordingly, this ingredient is also duly satisfied.
5.6 Ingredient No. 4: Failure to make payment within 15 days of
receipt of noticeThe legal demand notice was delivered on 22.01.2022. It is the
case of the Complainant, which has not been disputed, that the
Appellant failed to make payment of the cheque amount within 15
days of receipt of the notice. The Appellant has also not produced
any evidence to show that he made payment within the statutory
period. Accordingly, this ingredient is also satisfied.
5.7 Ingredient No. 5: Reason for dishonour
5.7.1 The cheque was dishonored with the remarks “payment
stopped by drawer” vide returning memo dated 13.01.2022
DLND010029662025 Page 36 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR(Ex.CW1/2). The Appellant has admitted the genuineness of the
return memo. “Payment stopped by drawer” is one of the reasons
for dishonour covered under the proviso to Section 138 of the NI
Act. Accordingly, this ingredient is also satisfied.
6 Conclusion on Ingredients
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALERIn view of the above detailed analysis, it is clear that all the
SINGH
6.1.1
Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:54
+0530
ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are fully and completely
satisfied in the present case. The Appellant has admitted his
signatures on the cheque. The statutory presumptions under
Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act have been mandatorily
raised in favour of the Complainant. The Appellant has failed to
rebut these presumptions by leading any credible evidence. The
defence raised by the Appellant is inconsistent, contradictory, and
completely devoid of any evidence. The Appellant has neither
entered the witness box himself, nor has he summoned any
witness to prove his defence. The Appellant has also failed to
produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his defence.
6.1.2 In these circumstances, the Learned Trial Court has rightly
held that the Appellant has failed to create any reasonable doubt
DLND010029662025 Page 37 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
over the veracity of the case of the Complainant and has rightly
convicted the Appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act.
7 Assessment of the Impugned Judgment
7.1.1 This Court has carefully perused the impugned judgment
dated 13.02.2025 and finds that the Learned Trial Court has
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
discussed all the relevant legal principles, correctly appreciated the
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
evidence on record, and arrived at a well-reasoned and legally
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:51:58
+0530sound conclusion. The Learned Trial Court has meticulously
examined each ingredient of Section 138 of the NI Act and has
correctly held that all the ingredients are satisfied. The Learned
Trial Court has also correctly appreciated the statutory
presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act and has
rightly found that the Appellant has failed to rebut these
presumptions.
7.1.2 The judgment is neither illegal nor perverse. The Learned
Trial Court has applied its judicial mind to all the relevant aspects
of the case. The judgment is based on cogent evidence and sound
legal principles. There is no error or infirmity in the impugned
judgment that would warrant interference by this Court in appeal.
8 Assessment of the Order on Sentence
DLND010029662025 Page 38 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
8.1.1 As regards the order on sentence dated 11.03.2025, it is
pertinent to note that no substantive sentence of imprisonment has
been awarded to the Appellant. The Learned Trial Court has only
directed the Appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of the cheque till the date of judgment, failing which the
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP Appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month in
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:52:02
+0530
default.
8.1.2 Section 138 of the NI Act provides for punishment which
may extend to imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both. In addition, Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. provides
for payment of compensation to the victim.
8.1.3 The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is primarily an
economic offence. The primary object of the provision is to
provide a quick and summary remedy to the payee of dishonored
cheques. In such cases, unless there are aggravating circumstances,
courts generally award compensation rather than substantive
imprisonment.
DLND010029662025 Page 39 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
8.1.4 In the present case, the Learned Trial Court has taken a
lenient view and has awarded only compensation along with
interest. The quantum of compensation awarded is Rs. 1,00,000/-,
Digitally
signed by which is exactly equal to the amount of the dishonored cheque.
SAURABH SAURABH
PARTAP
PARTAP
SINGH
SINGH LALER
Date: The interest has been awarded at 9% per annum, which is
LALER 2026.02.21
17:52:05
+0530
reasonable and compensatory in nature. The period of default
imprisonment of 1 month is also reasonable and proportionate.
8.1.5 The compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is in
accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dayawati Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain (2000) 4 SCC 400,
Goaplast (P) Ltd. Vs. Chico Ursula D’Souza (2003) 3 SCC 232,
and M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.
(2002) 1 SCC 234.
8.1.6 Moreover, the liability of the Appellant towards the
Complainant regarding the present cheque has been pending since
January, 2022. The Complainant has been deprived of his hard-
earned money for over four years now. In these circumstances, the
compensation along with interest awarded by the Learned Trial
Court cannot be said to be either excessive or inadequate. The
same is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law.
DLND010029662025 Page 40 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR
8.1.7 In the absence of any substantive sentence of imprisonment,
there is no scope for reducing the compensation or waiving the
default imprisonment. The Appellant is liable to pay the
compensation as awarded by the Learned Trial Court. If the
Appellant fails to pay the compensation, he shall have to undergo
Digitally signed
the default imprisonment as ordered.
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
PARTAP LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:52:09 +0530
8.1.8 Accordingly, the order on sentence passed by the Learned
Trial Court also does not call for any interference by this Court.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 After detailed consideration of the entire case, this Court arrives at
the following conclusions:
9.2 The application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the
appeal is hereby ALLOWED, and the delay is hereby CONDONED
for the reasons mentioned in the application.
9.3 All the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are fully and completely proved in
the present case. The Appellant has admitted his signatures on the
cheque in question. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a)
and 139 of the NI Act have been mandatorily raised in favour of the
DLND010029662025 Page 41 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURComplainant. The Appellant has failed to rebut these presumptions
even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
9.4 The defence raised by the Appellant is inconsistent, contradictory,
Digitally
signed by
and completely devoid of any evidence. No evidence has been
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAPproduced to substantiate the defence. The Appellant has neither
PARTAP SINGH
SINGH LALER
LALER Date:
2026.02.21
17:52:12
+0530entered the witness box himself nor summoned any witness to prove
his defence. The Appellant has also not produced any documentary
evidence. The defence raised by the Appellant could not be proved
even prima facie, and obviously not on the standard of preponderance
of probabilities.
9.5 The impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2025 passed by
the Learned Trial Court is well-reasoned, legally sound, and based on
cogent evidence. The Learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated
the evidence on record and has rightly convicted the Appellant under
Section 138 of the NI Act. The judgment does not suffer from any
error or infirmity.
9.6 The order on sentence dated 11.03.2025 is just, reasonable, and in
accordance with law. No substantive sentence of imprisonment has
been awarded. Only compensation along with interest has been
awarded, which is appropriate given that the offence under Section
DLND010029662025 Page 42 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKUR138 of the NI Act is primarily an economic offence. The
compensation cannot be reduced, nor can the default imprisonment be
waived.
9.7 The present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be
dismissed. The appeal appears to be nothing but a dilatory tactic to
delay compliance with the lawful sentence passed by the Learned
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
Trial Court.
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
Accordingly, for the detailed reasons discussed above, the present
17:52:16
+0530
9.8appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The judgment of conviction dated
13.02.2025 and the order on sentence dated 11.03.2025 passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Digital Court-1,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2979/2022
are hereby UPHELD and AFFIRMED.
10 DIRECTIONS
The following directions are hereby issued:
10.1 The Appellant/Convict Shri Rohit Nawaria is hereby directed to
pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along
with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the
cheque i.e. 10.01.2022 till the date of the judgment of the Learned
DLND010029662025 Page 43 of 43
CA/136/2025
ROHIT NAWARIA
Vs.
LAL JI THAKURTrial Court i.e. 13.02.2025 to the Respondent/Complainant Shri Lal Ji
Thakur in terms of the order on sentence passed by Ld. Trial Court.
10.2 In the event of failure on the part of the Appellant/Convict to make
payment of the compensation as directed, the Appellant/Convict shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month in default of
payment of compensation as directed in order of sentence.
10.3 The fine amount, if not paid in time, shall be recoverable under the
provisions of Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C./505 read
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH SAURABH
with 516 BNSS.
PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.21
17:52:20
+0530 11 A copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for
information and necessary action and execution of order on sentence.
12 Copy of judgment be given to appellant free of cost.
13 There shall be no order as to costs.
Announced in open court
on this 21st day of February, 2026.
(SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER)
ASJ-05/New Delhi District
PHC / New Delhi / 21.02.2026
