Delhi District Court
Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd vs Pooja Chauhan on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SOLANKI : JMFC NI
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX
M/S DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK LTD.
Vs.
POOJA CHAUHAN
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CC NI Act number : 2076/2025
2. Name of the complainant : M/S Delhi Nagarik Sehkari Bank
Ltd.
3. Name of the accused : Pooja Chauhan
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Convicted
7. Date of judgment/order : 16.02.2026
Date of Institution: 10.09.2025
Date of Reserving Judgment/Order: 12.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order : 16.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, this court shall dispose of the present
complaint filed by M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) against Pooja
Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) U/S 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 r/w Section 142 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act‘).
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan
14:20:04
+05301 Out of 14
Brief facts:
2. It is the case of the complainant, that the complainant i.e.
Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. (hereinafter called as teh
complainantbank) is a cooperative bank and is registerd under
the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Bank and is registered
under the provisions of the Delhi Coopertive Societies Act, 2003
and the rules framed there under and the bye lwas of the bank.
The complainant bank is doing all various banking functions
which includes granting of loan facilities to its members also.
That at present, complainant is having its Regd. Office at 720,
near Ghanta Ghar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 and its
administrative office at 3-C/5, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New
Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005 and branches at different
places across Delhi. That Sh. Anoop Kumar Wahi is the Chief
Executive Officer of the complainant and has been authorized
through a General Power of attorney dated 31.08.2023 to
represent the complainant in all legal proceedings ans has been
authorized to further authorize any other competent official to
represent the complainant in various cases. In furtherance to the
General Power of attorney dated 31.08.2023, the aforesaid CEO
has authorized Sh. Arun Kumar S/O Devender Nath Sharma
working as Jr. Clerk to pursue various legal matters including the
present matter in this regard.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 14:20:12
+0530
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan
2 Out of 14
2.2 That the accused is a member of the complainant bank
having 036086180301. Accused had borrowed a loan of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on dated 09.02.2023
from the complainanat bank and executed the requisite
documents towards the same. Accused had agreed to repay the
loan in installments alongwith the interest in timely manner. That
in discharge of said loan, accused had deposited a cheque of
Rs.87,800/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred
Only) in said loan account for repayment/dischare of said loan
vide cheque bearing no. 000032 dated 05.05.2025 drawn on
Bank of Baroda, Branch Jheel, Delhi-110051. That the said
cheque was deposited by the accused on 06.05.2025 but the same
was returned unpaid with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide
information received to the complainant from the banker of
accused on 07.05.2025 vide a cheque returning memo. That
immediatly thereafter complainant had intimated the accused
regarding the factum of dishonor of said cheque, but none has
resulted till date. That despite repeated reminders and requests,
the accused failed to make the payment towards the above said
dishonored cheque. That the complainant thereafter got issued
the legal demand notice dated 31.05.2025 on the accused
through its counsel vide speed post dated 31.05.2025 on the
given address of the accused and the accused has received the
Digitally signed
by ANKIT
SOLANKI
ANKIT Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 SOLANKI 2026.02.16
14:20:21
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan +0530
3 Out of 14
same on dated 04.06.2025. That the accused this action shows
beyong any doubt that he had deceived the complainant and
criminally breached the trust bestowed upon by the complainant
on him and there this action amount to an offence in the eyes of
law punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1888.
Proceedings before the Court:
3. The complaint was received by assignment in this Court. After
perusing the complaint and hearing the arguments of the
complainant on the point of summoning of the accused, prima
facie it appeared that the offence U/S 138 NI Act, has been
committed. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act
was taken against the accused and summons were issued to the
accused.
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on
16.01.2026 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Thereafter, considering the defence stated at the time of
framing of notice by the accused, this court decided to allow
cross examination of the complainant as per 145(2) NI Act, and
the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant
evidence, cross-examination Nil. Opportunity given. CE wasDigitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 2026.02.16
14:20:30
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan +0530
4 Out of 14
closed in the present case on 16.01.2026. Statement of the
accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded on 16.01.2026 wherein the
accused has opted not to lead defence evidence and the case was
listed for final arguments. On 12.02.2026, final arguments were
heard on behalf of the complainant and accused and the case was
reserved for judgment.
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, Cross-examination of AR of the
complainant was Nil. Opportunity Given.
6. Complainant has not examined any other witness in this
case.
7. The accused has not lead any evidence.
Arguments of both parties:
8. Ld. counsel for the complainant while reiterating the
contents of the complaint has argued that all the requirements of
Section 138, NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in
the present case. He argued that the cheque in question was
issued by the accused towards his legally enforceable liability.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan
14:20:38
+05305 Out of 14
He further argued that when the cheque was presented before
the bank for encashment, the same was dishonored on
presentation vide return memo dated 07.05.2025 for reasons
‘Funds Insufficient’. Thereafter the legal notice dated
31.05.2025 was sent to the accused to make the payment within
the 15 days stipulated period, but no payment was made by the
accused. Thus, all the ingredients of section 138 NI Act, have
been duly satisfied and thus presumption U/S 139 NI Act, has
been validly raised against the accused. Ld. Counsel submits
that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence to
disprove the case of complainant and to rebut the presumption
U/S 139 NI Act.
Appreciation of evidence:
9. I have heard counsels on behalf of both the sides, perused the
record as well as relevant provisions of law.
10. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the
purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed
first. Section 138, NI provides as under:
“Section 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
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKICC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan
14:20:45
+05306 Out of 14
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 an offence and shall, without
prejudice to any other provisions 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 or other
liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
11. It is well settled position of law that to constitute an offence
under Section 138, NI Act, the following ingredients are required
to be fulfilled:
I. drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained
by him with a banker,
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 2026.02.16
14:20:54
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan +0530
7 Out of 14
II. The cheque was issued for payment to another person for
discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
III. 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. RBI in its notification
DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 has reduced the
aforesaid period from 6 months to 3 months.
IV. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want
of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement
with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque;
V. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30
days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment
of the cheque amount;
VI. Failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the
holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the
cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
The offence under Section 138, NI Act is made out against the
drawer of the cheque, only when all the aforementioned
ingredients are fulfilled.
12. In the present case at hand, the complainant has filed on
record the original cheque, i.e., bearing no. 000032 dated
05.05.2025 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Jheel, Delhi-110051. In
notice under Section 251 CrPC, the accused has admitted to
issuing the cheque in question to the complainant and admitted
the signatures on the cheque. Therefore, ingredient number I
stands fulfilled in the present case.
13. As per the RBI guidelines, it is essential for the cheque in
question be to presented within a period of three months from
the date on which they are drawn and the same be returned as
unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
14:21:02
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan +05308 Out of 14
credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay
the sum covered by the cheque. In the case at hand, the cheque in
question was returned vide return memo dated 07.05.2025 due to
the reason “Funds Insufficient.” By implication thereof, the
cheques were presented within three months and the same were
returned for Drawer Signature Differ. Therefore, Ingredient
number III & IV stand fulfilled in the present case.
14. The legal notice in the present case was sent to the accused
on 31.05.2025 i.e., within 30 days of return of the bank memo
indicating cheque in question being unpaid. The accused has not
admitted to the receipt of legal demand notice in notice u/s 251
CrPC. As per the presumption raised under Section 114 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if
the legal demand notice is sent at thorrect address, then the same
shall be deemed to have been duly served.
As per the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC
(Cri), “A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of
the summons from the court along with the copy of the
complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously
contend that there was no proper service of notice as required
under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the
contrary under Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the
Evidence Act.”
In K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr,
Appeal (crl.) 1015 of 1999 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as “K.
Bhaskaran”), the Hon’ble SC observed:
“On the part of the payee he has to make a demand by
`giving a notice’ in writing. If that was the only requirement to
complete the offence on the failure of the drawer to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days from the date of such `giving’ the
travails of the prosecution would have been very much lessened.
But the legislature says that failure on the part of the drawer toDigitally signed
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
by ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKIM/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
14:21:12 +05309 Out of 14
pay the amount should be within 15 days `of the receipt’ of the
saidnotice. It is, therefore, clear that `giving notice’ in the context
is not the same as receipt of notice.” The burden of giving notice
within 30 days of return of bank memo, falls on the
complainant/payee to constitute the offence u/s 138, NI Act. If
the notice is served on the correct address, then the presumption
u/s 27 General Clauses Act and Section 114, Indian Evidence
Act arises in the favour of the complainant/payee. Therefore, it is
deemed that the legal notice was duly served on the accused
person. The ingredient number V also stands fulfilled in the
present case.
15. Moving on, it is not disputed that the accused has not made
the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt
of legal demand notice. Therefore, ingredient number VI also
stands fulfilled in the present case.
16. Let us now move on to ingredient number II,
16.1. The NI Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder
of the cheque, i.e., complainant; firstly, with regard to the
issuance of cheque for consideration, as contained in Section
118(a) and secondly, with regard to the fact that the holder of
cheque received the same for discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability, as contained in Section 139 of the Act.
16.2. Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various
pronouncements in this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [AIR 2019 SC 1983] held
that:
I. Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the
Act mandates that a presumption be drawn that the cheque in
question was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
II. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable
presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probableDigitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
2026.02.16
14:21:22
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan +053010 Out of 14
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
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.
It is therefore implied that the law regarding the presumption for
the offence under Section 138, NI Act, the presumptions under
Section 118(a) and Section 139 have to be compulsorily raised as
soon as the execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or
proved by the complainant and thereafter the burden is shifted
upon the accused to prove otherwise.
16.3. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is
proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for
consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets
[(2009) 2 SCC 513], has laid down the benchmark for the burden
of proof that the accused has to raise a doubt as to the
presumption under Section 139, NI Act.
“The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two
options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not
exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the
non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a
prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt
existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions, an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is
expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused mayDigitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan 14:21:31
+053011 Out of 14
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 non-existence 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 non-existence
was so probable that a prudent man would under the
circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not
exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note
in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not
incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon
are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the
complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of
fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the
Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections
118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove
the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by
letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from
the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the
complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence
adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal
evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to
all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of
probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the
complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections
118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant’s
rescue.”
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
2026.02.16
14:21:45
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan +053012 Out of 14
16.4. To put in a nutshell, the intent behind the NI Act is to
prevent financial frauds and affect the socio-economic well-
being of the country. If the burden is placed on the complainant
to prove the existence of liability against the accused, that would
be too harsh as most of these transactions are in the nature of
“friendly loan” and the accused would, in a normal
circumstance, always deny the liability. Therefore, the legislation
is drafted in a way so as to discharge the complainant from
proving the liability and a presumption is raised by virtue of
Section 139 read with Section 118(a) of the Act that the cheque
if issued by the accused, then the same is deemed to be in
discharge of some legally enforceable debt in favour of the
complainant. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused
“may” either prove that no legally enforceable debt existed or
punch holes in the story of the complainant and give rise to a
probable defence to rebut the presumption. As per the law
discussed above, the burden of proof on the accused to raise a
probable defence is that of “preponderance of probabilities”, and
not “beyond reasonable doubt.” Once a probable defence is
raised, then the onus is shifted to the complainant to establish
that a legally enforceable liability existed in his favour and the
burden of proof on complainant in this case is that of “beyond
reasonable doubt.”
16.5. The accused can rebut the presumption as raised under the
NI Act by (a) putting forth his defence at the time of framing of
notice u/s 251 CrPC; (b) cross-examining the complainant; (c)
when statement of accused is recorded u/s 313 CrPC; (d) or by
leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the
complainant. It is amply clear that the accused does not need to
discharge his or her liability beyond the shadow of reasonable
doubt. He just needs to create holes in the case set out by the
Complainant.
17. In light of the above discussions since the accused has
admitted to issuance of cheque, admitted the signature on the
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025 SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan 14:21:54
+053013 Out of 14
Cheque and the legal demand notice what is left to be seen is
whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption
against himself and that whether he has been able to raise a
probable defence in his favor or not.
18. However, it is a rebuttable presumption. But in order to
rebut the same the accused has to lead some cogent proof either
to prove his case or to punch holes in the version put forward by
the complainant. In the present matter the accused had not cross-
examined the complainant and therefore he has not been
successful in impeaching the credit of the complainant as a
witness.
19. The accused has not led DE in support of his defence and
there is nothing on record to discredit the version put forward by
the complainant.
20. The complainant has placed on record relevant documents
to prove his case. The complainant has been successful in
sufficiently proving his version. Presumption Under Section 118
is already in his favour. Therefore, the complainant has been able
to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probability.
21. All the ingredients of Section 138 have been fulfilled.
Accordingly, the accused is found guilty of the abovesaid
offence.
22. Copy of this Judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court ANKIT
ANKIT
SOLANKI
Today on this 16.02.2026 SOLANKI Date:
2026.02.16
14:22:08
+0530
(Ankit Solanki)
Judicial Magistrate First Class
(NI ACT), East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
CC NI ACT No. 2076/2025
M/S Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pooja Chauhan
14 Out of 14
