Delhi District Court
Sardar Surinder Paul Singh vs Vikram Singh Jaswal on 22 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer - Manisha Bhau, Delhi Judicial Service
CC NI Act 945/2023
CNR NUMBER DLSH020061282023
In the matter of
SARDAR SURINDER PAUL SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh Saini,
R/o 75, Saini Enclave,
Delhi - 110092 ...Complainant
versus
VIKRAM SINGH JASWAL
S/o Sh. Narinder Singh Jaswal,
R/o 126, Gagan Vihar Extn,
Delhi  110051 ...Accused
Under offence Section 138, NI Act, 1881
Date of institution 30.06.2023
Plea of accused Not guilty
Date of reserving of judgment 26.09.2025
Date of pronouncement 22.04.2026
Decision Conviction
Â1Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. Heading Page number
I Case of the Complainant 2
II Proceedings before the Court 8
III Submissions 10
IV Applicable Law 10
V Questions for Consideration 12
VI Decision 18
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the aforementioned
complaint instituted by the complainant against the accused under the
offence punishable under Section 138, the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act“).
I. CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
2. The substance of allegations, as contained in the complaint, are as follows:
2.1. The complainant is a senior citizen, who retired from the Reserve
Bank of India in the month of February, 2013. The complainant was
in search of a property for the purpose of investment, and his milk
vendor, Mr. Anil Kumar, introduced him to the accused as a famous
builder/property dealer as well as his cousin.
2.2. The accused presented himself as the owner/builder of various
properties in the area, and he started visiting the house of the
complainant along with his father, Mr. Narinder Jaswal.
Â2Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
2.3. The accused showed various properties to the complainant in the area
near his house and assured him of profit in lakhs of rupees. After
various meetings, he won over trust of the complainant, and induced
him to invest in the properties in which the accused was the owner, or
builder, or had a share.
2.4. In the period of three months, from May 2013 to July 2013, the
accused along with his father, his wife, and Mr. Anil Kumar, showed
various properties to the complainant and deceived him into investing
in three properties, of which the accused presented to be the absolute
owner and builder, which are as follows:
i. The property bearing no. 115, 2nd floor, Gagan Vihar Extension,
Delhi – 110051 admeasuring 110 sq. yd.
ii. The property bearing no. 120, 2nd floor, Gagan Vihar Extension,
Delhi – 110051 admeasuring 100 sq. yd.
iii. The property bearing no. 2A/7, E Â Block, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
– 110051.
2.5. With respect to property no. 115, 2 nd floor, Gagan Vihar Extension,
the accused entered into a Mutual – cum – Partnership agreement
dated 29.05.2013 with the complainant in the presence of witnesses,
namely, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Deep Chand. The complainant paid
a total sum of Rs. 22,00,000/Â to the accused, through two cheques
bearing number 3634 and 3633 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/Â and for
Rs. 17,00,000/Â, respectively, both drawn on Axis Bank, Delhi. These
cheques were duly encashed by the accused on 29.05.2013 and
31.05.2013.
Â3Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
2.6. With respect to the property no. 120, 2 nd floor, Gagan Vihar
Extension, Delhi, the accused entered into a Floor Booking
Arrangement on 02.07.2013 with the complainant in the presence of
witnesses, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Deep Chand, and the
complainant paid Rs. 25,00,000/Â to the accused through three
cheques, i.e.:
(a) Cheque bearing no. 3638 dated 01.07.2013 for Rs. 10,00,000/Â
drawn in favour of the accused
(b) Cheque bearing no. 3639 dated 02.07.2013 for Rs. 10,00,000/Â
drawn in favour of Ms. Vandana, W/o Mr. Anil Kumar
(c) Cheque bearing no. 3640 dated 04.07.2013 for Rs. 5,00,000/Â in
favour of Mr. Vinay Kumar.
2.7. The accused had introduced Mr. Vinay Kumar as his “builder
brother” and informed the complainant that the cheques should be
issued in favour of other persons as he could not receive such a huge
sum in his own bank account due to income tax restrictions. All the
abovementioned cheques of the complainant were duly encashed.
2.8. Within a period of 15 days of receiving the said amount, the accused,
along with his father, approached the complainant and informed him
that the property no. 120 at Gagan Vihar Extension, Delhi, was sold,
and since it was sold within 15 days, there was no profit arising from
the sale. The accused, however, assured the complainant that his
money was safe with him.
2.9. With respect to the property no. 2A/7, E Â Block, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi, the accused took the complainant to this property and
Â4Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
introduced him to Mr. Vinay Kumar as the other partner in the said
property. Mr. Vinay confirmed that the share of the accused in the
said property was 33.3%. Since the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/Â given
previously by the complainant was with the accused, the accused
asked the complainant to give a further sum of Rs. 30,00,000/Â, upon
which the complainant would be given 50% of the share of the
accused in the property. Resultantly, on 24.07.2013, a Deed of
Partnership was executed between them in the presence of witnesses,
namely, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Deep Chand. The complainant
provided the said sum of Rs. 30,00,000/Â to the accused in the
following manner:
a. Cheque bearing number 3637 dated 18.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/Â in the favour of the accusedb. Cheque bearing number 023241 dated 05.09.2013 for a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/Â in the favour of the accusedc. Transfer of sum of Rs. 2,00,000/Â in the name of the accused
through NEFTd. Handing over of cash in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/Â to the accused
e. Cheque bearing number 3629 dated 19.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/Â in the name of Ms. Vandana.
2.10. All the abovesaid cheques were duly encashed. On 02.07.2015, the
accused gave an undertaking in his own handwriting to the
complainant, in the presence of Mr. Anil Kumar, stating that he will
return the entire money of the complainant within three months, and if
the accused failed to do so by 10.10.2015, then he will register one of
his flats in the name of the complainant.
Â5Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
2.11. Since no payment was done by the accused in terms of the
undertaking, the complainant again approached him, and then the
accused issued two cheques, i.e., (a) cheque bearing number 910267
dated 01.11.2015 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/Â, and (b) cheque bearing
number 910268 dated 01.11.2015 of Rs. 10,00,000/Â. Both these
cheques also returned dishonoured upon presentment with remark
“funds insufficient” vide bank return memo dated 05.11.2015.
2.12. The complainant informed the accused about the said dishonour of
cheques, and the accused visited the house of the complainant and
assured him to wait till April, 2016 for the repayment to be done in a
single transaction. The accused admitted his liability towards the
complainant for the sum which was transferred to him as well as to
Ms. Vandana, W/o Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Vinay Kumar.
2.13. Thereafter, the accused issued three cheques each dated 08.04.2016 in
favour of the complainant, namely:
(a) Cheque bearing no. 320423 for Rs. 22,00,000/Â
(b) Cheque bearing no. 320424 for Rs. 25,00,000/Â
(c) Cheque bearing no. 399474 for Rs. 30,00,000/Â
All drawn on Syndicate Bank, EÂ355, Opp Laxmi Nagar Centre,
Nirman Vihar, Delhi – 110092.
2.14. Accused requested the complainant to fill the said cheques as per the
instruction of the accused and signed the three cheques in the
presence of Mr. Deep Chand.
Â6Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
2.15. Upon presentment with the bank of the complainant, the cheque
bearing no. 320423, 320424 and 399474, returned back unpaid with
the remark “Funds insufficient”.
2.16. The complainant filed two complaints under Sec. 138, NI Act, CT
Case 12929/2016 and 12929/2016 against the accused. The certified
copies of both complaints are Ex. CW1/1 (Colly) and Ex. CW1/2
(Colly). In addition to these complaints, there are civil suit no.
2214/2016, 2215/2016, and 2215/2016 pending before Ld. ADJ,
Karkardooma Court, and a decree in favour of the complainant has
been passed in Civil Suit 2215/2016 dated 07.04.2022 (Ex. CW1/3).
An execution petition and a criminal case no. 727/2018 pertaining to
FIR No. 370/2017, P.S. Anand Vihar is also pending trial.
2.17. During pendency of CT Case 12928/2016, a settlement was arrived at
between the parties on 10.02.2023 (Ex. CW1/4) and the accused
agreed to pay Rs. 36,00,000/Â in three installments. With a malafide
intention, the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 463622 dated
28.02.2023 drawn on ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi for a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/Â (Ex. CW1/5) instead of demand draft as agreed in the
settlement (hereinafter referred to as ‘the cheque’ or ‘cheque in
question’).
2.18. Upon presentment with the bank of the complainant, the said cheque
also returned dishonoured vide bank memo dated 02.03.2023 with the
remark “Account closed” (Ex. CW1/6).
2.19. The complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 27.03.2023 (Ex.
CW1/8) through speed post and courier dated (Ex. CW1/9, Ex.
Â7Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
CW1/10 and Ex. CW1/11). In the said notice, an amount of Rs.
10,00,000/Â was demanded by the complainant from the accused and
the accused was duly served with the legal demand notice; however,
no payment of the demanded amount was made by him. Aggrieved
thereby, the complainant instituted the present complaint.
3. Put briefly, the complainant initially instituted two separate complaints
u/s 138, NI Act, i.e., CT Case 12928/2016 and CT Case 12929/2016 and
the present complaint was instituted subsequently for the cheque issued
by the accused as per the joint settlement of the parties in the initial
complaints. All the three complaints were proceeded with on the same
dates during trial.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
4. The accused was summoned in the complaint vide order dated
18.08.2023.
5. On 21.09.2023, the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC“) was framed upon the
accused. After the substance of accusation was explained, the accused
pleaded not guilty and stated that he will disclose his defence in his
application u/s 145(2), NI Act.
6. On 01.12.2023, the application filed by the accused u/s 145(2), NI Act,
was allowed.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant led evidence as follows:
Oral Evidence
Â8Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh JaswalCW1 The complainant (tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit i.e., Ex. CW1/A)Documentary Evidence
Certified copy of complaint under Sec. 138, NI Act
Ex. CW1/1 (Colly.)
bearing CT Case 12928/2016 against the accused
C Certified copy of complaint under Sec. 138, NI Act
Ex. CW1/2 (Colly.)
bearing CT Case 12929/2016 against the accused
Copy of certified copy of Decree in favour of the
Ex. CW1/3
complainant passed in Civil Suit 2215/2016 dated
07.04.2022
A copy of the settlement between the parties dated
Ex. CW1/4
10.02.2023 in CT Case 12928/2016Ex. CW1/5 Original cheque no. 463622 dated 28.02.2023
Ex. CW1/6 Original bank return memo dated 02.03.2023
Ex. CW1/7 Copy of order sheet pertaining to CT Case
12928/2016Ex. CW1/8 Legal demand notice dated 27.03.2023
Ex. CW1/9, Ex. Original postal receipts, courier receipt and tracking
CW1/10 & Ex. report
CW1/11
8. The evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant contained the same
averments as his complaint.
9. The complainant was crossÂexamined and discharged on 14.03.2024.
10. The statement of accused under Section 313, CrPC, was recorded on
24.04.2024 after all the incriminating evidence was put to him. On
21.05.2024, it was stated on behalf of the accused that he did not wish to
lead any defence and accordingly, the matter was listed for final
arguments.
Â9Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
III. SUBMISSIONS
11. Arguments heard on behalf of both parties.
12. Ld. Counsel for complainant made the following submissions:
12.1. The liability of the accused qua the cheque in question is
undisputed. The cheque was issued towards settlement of two other
complaints u/s 138 NI Act.
12.2. The accused has not put forth any defence during trial. The
testimony of the complainant also stands unrebutted as not a single
question has been put to him to dispute the issuance of the cheque.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused made the following submissions:
13.1. The accused does not have any liability in the present complaint as
the requirement of service of the legal demand notice has not been
proved by the complainant.
13.2. Since the legal demand notice was not served upon the accused, he
cannot be made liable for the cheque in question as the requirement
of service of legal demand notice is an integral ingredient for
constitution of the offence.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
14. Section 138 of the NI Act reads as under:
“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the
account.– Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money
to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank
unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit
of that 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 that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed
Â10Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this
Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended
to two years’, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of
the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless–
(a) the cheque has 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;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case
may be, 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
thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the 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.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “debt of other
liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”
15. In order to establish the offence under Section 138, NI Act, the
following necessary ingredients of the offence must be fulfilled:
First A person issued a cheque on an account maintained by
him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money
to another person from out of that account;
Second The cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability;
Third The cheque was presented to the bank within a period of
three months from the date on which it is drawn or within
the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
Fourth The cheque returned 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 theÂ11Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswalamount arranged to be paid from that account by an
agreement made with the bank;
Fifth The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque made
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;
Sixth The drawer of such cheque failed 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.
V. QUESTIONS OF CONSIDERATION
16. The accused has not disputed that the cheque in question bears his
signature. The cheque was presented within its validity period and
returned dishonoured with the remark “Account closed” as per the
original bank return memo.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Laxmi Dyechem v. State
of Gujarat & Ors, 2013 AIR SCW 3468, held as follows:
“15. The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the
two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be
interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful
agreement with the decision in NEPC Micon Ltd. (supra) that the
expression “amount of money …………. is insufficient” appearing in
Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such “as
account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer” are
only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground
that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first
contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground
that the “signatures do not match” or that the “image is not found”,
which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the
signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the
meaning of Section 138 of the Act. This Court has in the decisions
referred to above taken note of situations and contingencies arising out
of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the part of the drawersÂ12Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswalof the cheques which would inevitably result in the dishonour of the
cheque issued by them. For instance this Court has held that if after
issue of the cheque the drawer closes the account it must be presumed
that the amount in the account was nil hence insufficient to meet the
demand of the cheque…”
18. Accordingly, the first, third, and fourth ingredient stand fulfilled.
19. The accused stated in his statement under Sec. 313, CrPC, that he did
not receive the legal demand notice. In this regard, reference is made
to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr, 2007 AIR SCW 3578:
“14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has
been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In
view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by
registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further
aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is
deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have
knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the
addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at
which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of
business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by
registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not
available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in
station, due service has to be presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu
Singh ; State of M.P. Vs. Hiralal & Ors. and V.Raja Kumari Vs.
P.Subbarama Naidu & Anr.]…
15. Insofar as the question of disclosure of necessary particulars with
regard to the issue of notice in terms of proviso (b) of Section 138 of the
Act, in order to enable the Court to draw presumption or inference either
under Section 27 of the G.C. Act or Section 114 of the Evidence Act, is
concerned, there is no material difference between the two provisions. In
our opinion, therefore, when the notice is sent by registered post by
correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory
requirement of issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to
Section 138 of the Act stands complied with. It is needless to emphasise
that the complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and
manner of the issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque…It is then
for the drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice andÂ13Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswalshow that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his
address or that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that
the letter was never tendered or that the report of the postman was
incorrect.”
[Emphasis supplied]
20. Nothing has been put forth by the accused, being the addressee, that there
was any interruption in the ordinary course of business or that the accused
was not sent to his correct address. Thus, the presumption of due service
arises in favour of the complainant in view of Section 27, General Clauses
Act, read with Section 114, Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the fifth
ingredient also stands fulfilled
21. It is also not disputed that the payment of the cheque amount was not
made by the accused in lieu of the legal demand notice. Therefore, the
sixth ingredient stands fulfilled.
22. The only ingredient to be examined now is whether the cheque was issued
in discharge of a debt or liability. In this regard, it is relevant to discuss
the presumptions as envisaged in Section 118 and Section 139, NI Act.
23. Section 139, NI Act, reads as follows:
“Presumption in favour of holder: 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”
24. Further, Section 118(a) of the NI Act, states:
“118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.–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;…”
Â14Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, interpreted the aforesaid provisions as
follows:
19. The use of the phrase “until the contrary is proved” in Section
118 of the Act and use of the words “unless the contrary is proved”
in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of “may presume” and
“shall presume” as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at
once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions
are rebuttable…
20. …The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note
in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no
debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not
insist in every case that the accused should disprove the nonÂexistence
of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the
existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At
the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the
consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the
purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be
brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the
complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should
bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration
of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and
debt did not exist or their nonÂexistence was so probable that a
prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon
the plea that they did not exist…”
[Emphasis supplied]
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa,
(2019) 5 SCC 418, summarised the principles on Sections 118 (a) and
139, NI Act, as follows:
“25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption
and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The
standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
Â15Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on
evidence led by him or the 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.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness
box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to
support his defence…”
[Emphasis supplied]
27. Since the accused has not disputed the signature on the cheques, the
presumption u/s 118 and 139, NI Act, is raised in favour of the
complainant.
28. The issuance and execution of the cheque is not disputed by the accused.
The accused has not put forth any defence during the entire trial. The
application u/s 145(2) NI Act moved by the accused does not contain any
specific defence, apart from the bare assertion that he does not have any
liability towards the complainant.
29. The accused admitted all the incriminating evidence when the same was
put to him during his statement u/s 313 CrPC. In his entire statement u/s
313 CrPC, the accused did dispute even a single assertion stated in the
complaint.
30. The case of the complainant also remained consistent and credible during
his crossÂexamination. There was no specific question put to the
complainant during his crossÂexamination so as to discredit him. The
complainant was only crossÂexamined to the limited extent that some
suggestions were put to him, to the effect that, the legal demand notice
Â16Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
was not served upon the accused or that the complainant had manipulated
the service of the legal demand notice. These suggestions were denied by
the complainant.
31. The accused did not examine any postal witness to disprove the service of
the legal demand notice. To the extent that it may even be contended that
the accused was not residing at the address to which the legal demand
notice was issued, the accused did not examine himself in this regard, and
neither did he place on record any document to prove his address. Thus,
the limited crossÂexamination on the point of the delivery of the legal
demand notice is not fruitful for the accused in any manner, especially
when it is not his defence that had he been served with the legal demand
notice, he would have made payment of the cheque amount as demanded
by the complainant.
32. The cheque in question was given by the accused pursuant to a settlement
entered into by the parties in the Court. The accused has not disputed or
challenged the complaint as to the factum of issuance of the cheque or his
liability.
33. Overall, the case of the complainant stands unrebutted and the accused
has not raised any defence, let alone proving of a probable defence.
Accordingly, the second ingredient regarding the issuance of the
cheque against legally enforceable debt or liability also stands
fulfilled.
Â17Â
CC NI Act 945/2023 Sardar Surinder Paul Singh v. Vikram Singh Jaswal
VI. DECISION
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, the accused, Vikram Singh Jaswal,
stands hereby convicted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act with
respect to the cheques in question in the present case.1
35. Let a copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict alongwith
coversheet containing details of DLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma
Court.
Digitally
signed by
MANISHA
MANISHA BHAU
BHAU Date:
2026.04.22
18:31:19
+0530
(MANISHA BHAU)
JMFC NI ACT / SHAHDARA, KKD
22.04.2026
1 Pronounced in open court on 22.04.2026
This judgement comprises of 18Âpages, and each page has been signed by me.
Â18Â
