Delhi District Court
Manav Kapoor vs Veer Bahadur Prajapati on 10 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.379/2025
PS H N Din
U/s 138 NI Act
Manav Kapoor
S/o Sh. Jswant Kapoor
R/o 4/57, 3rd Floor,
Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031.
Presently at House no. 22/5, Pant Nagar,
Jangpura Extension, South Delhi - 110014.
.... Appellant
Versus
Veer Bahadur Prajapati
S/o Ram Asees Prajapati
R/o House No. 118, Vinay Nagar,
Gali No. 4, Near Golden India Public School,
Faridabad, Haryana - 121006.
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 20.09.2025
Date of Arguments : 02.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.07.2026
Decision : Appeal dismissed.
Impugned judgment of acquittal of
the Ld. Trial Court stands upheld
JUDGMENT
1. Present matter was received by way of transfer in pursuance of the
order dated 02.09.2025 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
2. Appellant namely Manav Kapoor has filed present appeal against
respondent namely Veer Bahadur Prajapati thereby challenging
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 1 of 39
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2023.
3. Appellant herein was complainant before Ld. Trial Court and
respondent herein was accused before Ld. Trial Court. In order to
avoid confusion, parties will be referred with the same
nomenclature with which they were referred before Ld. Trial
Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
4. The complainant filed the complaint u/s 138 NI Act before the Ld.
Trial Court on 15.01.2022 and summoning order was passed
against the respondent on 17.02.2022, the same was passed.
Accused appeared before the Ld. Trial Court on 18.04.2022 and
matter was listed for framing of notice. Notice was framed u/s 138
NI Act on 28.04.2022 and matter was listed for complainant
evidence. CW1 Manav Kapoor was examined and cross examined
and discharged on 18.05.2022 and on the same date complainant
evidence was closed. On 18.05.2022 statement of accused was
recorded and matter was listed for DE. Accused examined himself
as DW1, and Satish Singh as DW2 and after cross examination of
both witnesses, DE was closed on 03.09.2022.
5. Case of complainant in brief was that the complainant and accused
person were known to each other for past many years and the
complainant was having good friendly relations with the accused
person and on that account, the accused gained the faith and
confidence of the complainant. That on 01.03.2019, the accused
had borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only)
as a friendly and interest free loan from the complainant for a
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 2 of 39
period of one year for the purpose of business expansion and
believing upon his requests and representations and keeping in
view the old and cordial friendly relations with the accused person,
the complainant was trapped in his honey talks and decided to help
him in his hard times and had duly acted in good faith as a true
friend and gave Rs. 7,00,000/- to the accused person. That soon
after the stipulated time got elapsed the complainant started
requesting the accused to return his hard earned money and on his
repeated requests and several phone calls on 26.09.2021 the
accused handed Rs. 20,000/- cash to the complainant and had
issued 2 Cheques dated 29.09.2021 bearing number 052105″ for an
amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- each to be drawn upon “CENTRAL
BANK OF INDIA, Baital Baitalpur Branch Deoria-274201 and
assured the complainant that the aforesaid Cheque will be duly
honored on their presentations. That the accused person in order to
honor his admitted liability had transferred an amount of Rs.
3,40,000/- through RTGS in to the bank account the complainant
and therefore, one cheque was returned back to the accused person
upon realization of the half amount in good faith and one was kept
with him for the realization of the balance amount. That believing
upon the promises made by the accused person, the complainant
had presented the above said Cheque for encashment in his bank
i.e. HDFC Bank at K-2 Jungpura Extension New Delhi-110014
and to his utter shock and dismay the aforementioned Cheque
bearing number “052105” dated 29.09.2021 has been returned back
unpaid from the Bank of the accused due to the reason
“PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER” vide return memo dated
23.11.2021 and the same was communicated to him through calls
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 3 of 39
and messages. That the complainant contacted the accused and
intimated him about dishonoring of his cheque and requested him
to pay back the loan amount but the accused avoided the requests
of the complainant on one pretext or the other. That after so many
reminders, the accused failed to discharge his admitted liability,
therefore finding no other way the complainant sent a legal notice
to the accused at his two known addresses demanding therein the
payment of Rs. 3,40,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Forty Thousand
Only) along with legal expenses within 15 days of the receipt of
the said legal notice. That the accused upon receiving the legal
notice sent by the Complainant had sent a reply dated 20.12.2021
against the aforesaid legal notice to the counsel for the
complainant. That the complainant further submits that he had
presented the said cheque within the time period as prescribed
under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the said cheque
issued by the accused got dishonored with the remarks
“PAYMENT STOP BY DRAWER” and further the accused has
failed to make the payment of the sum covered under the
dishonored cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
legal/demand notice. Therefore, the accused person has committed
the offense punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. TRIAL COURT
6. After filing of complaint, Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of
offence and recorded pre-summoning evidence, based on which,
accused was summoned. Subsequently, proceedings u/sec. 207
CrPC were completed and accused was given Notice u/sec. 251
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 4 of 39
Cr.P.C. on 28.04.2022 for the alleged offence, to which, he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During, the framing of notice
accused claimed that he had taken Rs. 3 Lakhs without interest
from the complainant due to illness of his wife in November, 2019.
Later on the complainant demanded interest from him and he
transferred Rs. 3,40,000/- in lieu of loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs through
RTGS. He had given the cheque in question as security on
29.09.2021 towards the repayment of loan. After that he
transferred Rs. 3,40,000/- through RTGS and demanded return of
cheque but the complainant did not return the same and threatened
him, thus he had stopped payment against the cheque in question.
The Complainant has misused his cheque. Thereafter, matter was
fixed for post summoning complainant evidence.
7. In his evidence, complainant examined himself as CW1 and
tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which, he
reiterated the contents of his complaint. Same are not repeated here
for the sake of brevity. He relied upon documents viz. original
cheque dated 29.09.2021 as Ex. CW1/1, original return memo
dated 23.11.2021 as Ex. CW1/2, Legal demand notice dated
06.12.2021 as Ex. CW1/3 alongwith postal receipts Ex. CW1/4
and returned envelope Ex. CW1/5 and tracking report as Ex.
CW1/6 (colly), reply to legal demand notice Ex. CW1/7 and
original hand written letter of the accused as Ex. CW1/8.
8. After examining, himself, complainant closed his evidence and
matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused u/sec. 313
CrPC r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 18.05.2022.
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 5 of 39
During the aforesaid statement accused deposed that “I had already
return the loan amount to the complainant and I also took receiving
from the complainant while giving the cheque in question to the
complainant. Ex. CW1/8 was written by me as was threatened by
complainant to do so. Complainant has 4-5 bouncers. They made
me write this document at gun point after locking me in the
basement. Complainant has threatened me several times that he
will kill me and he will not let me run my shop.”
9. Defence evidence was led by accused/respondent, wherein he
adopted his statement U/s 313 CrPC and examined himself as
DW1.
10.DW1 Veerbahadur Prajapati deposed that ” I further state that I had
taken Rs. 3 Lakhs from the complainant in year 2019 for delivery
of my wife. The complainant is engaged in business of
advancement of loan in GK and I became acquainted with the
complainant there only. The amount of Rs. 3 Lakh was advanced
by the complainant without any interest. No written agreement was
executed by the complainant regarding the same. However, later
on the complainant started demanding interest 1-2 months after the
advancement of loan. I had started returning the part of the loan
amount since December, 2019 which is already part of record. as
Mark B (Colly) which is now Ex. DWI/A (Colly) Against the loan
of Rs. 3 Lakh advanced by the complainant, I have already
returned him Rs.3,40,000/- at once by RTGS on 05.10.2021.
Rs.20,000/- second time in cash on 26.09.2021 and approximately
Rs.1,56,000/ or Rs.1,57,000/- in several installments third time I
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 6 of 39
had given this much of amount against the loan of rs. 3 Lakh as the
complainant told me that he had adjusted the amount of Rs.
Rs.1,56,000/- or Rs. 1,57,000/- paid by me in several installment
towards interest. I had given the cheque in question to the
complainant on 26.09.2021 when he started quarreling with me at
my shop for repayment of loan amount. He assured me to return
my cheque upon receiving the payment through RIGS. I had also
taken receiving from the complainant when I had given the cheque
in question to him which is part of record as Mark A now Ex.
DW1/B. After transferring the payment of Rs. 3,40,000/- to the
complainant by way of RTGS I demanded return or my cheque
from him, however, he did not return the same and started
threatening me and thereafter, I gave stop payment instructions to
my bank against the said cheque. The complainant had also
obtained my signatures on Ex. CW1/8 and he also threatened to do
away with my life. I had received legal demand notice from the
complainant and I had also replied the same which is part of record
as Ex. CW1/7.”
11.DW2 Satish Singh deposed that ” I know the accused since last 20
years. Accused is running a business of sale of sweet patato and
corn at New Delhi. I know the complainant since last 10 years. The
complainant is engaged in business of money landing. In August,
2021 I visited the shop of Accused being a regular customer, I saw
the accused and complainant fighting with each other. I asked the
accused what is going on here and he informed me that he had
taken the amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs from the complainant. Then, I
told the accused to return the money of the complainant. The
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 7 of 39
accused assured to return the said amount and sought time for the
same and the dispute was closed. After one week of the said
incident, the accused had given the cheque of Rs. 3,40,000/- to the
complainant in my presence in Aug August, 2021 But the
complainant was not ready to accept the cheque without any
security. Thereafter, the complainant called a meeting of 4-5
persons after few days and I was also called by the accused in the
said meeting held at Pan Shop nearby GK-1 where the accused was
running his business. I reached there after 15 minutes of staring of
meeting and saw that the complainant was threatening the accused
in one basement and the complainant forced the accused to execute
a hand written document regarding the repayment of the said loan.
I also signed on the said document on the asking of the
complainant. I was told that they have reached to an amicable
settlement. I had not read the said document. Accused told me that
he had taken loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs from the complainant and in lieu
of the same he had given one cheque of Rs. 3,40,000/-towards
repayment of this loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs. No written
document was executed at the time of handing over of the cheque.
12.After hearing final arguments, Ld. Trial Court acquitted the
accused vide impugned judgment.
13.Subsequently, present appeal was preferred by accused.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
14.Ld. Counsel for appellant/complainant has taken following
grounds challenging the impugned order.
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 8 of 39
A. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the impugned
judgment dated 31.01.2023 in Criminal Complaint No.CC NI
ACT/409/2022 in the matter titled as Manav Kapoor vs Veer
Bahadur Prajapati has been wrongly passed by the lower court by
way of floating twice the provisions laid down under the law.
B. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the facts and
contentions of the Appellant/Complainant and the law applicable
thereto in the final judgement dated 31.01.2023 thereby resulting
in grave injustice to the Appellant.
C. That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgement on
the erroneous reading of the law on the subject. The impugned
Judgement and order of acquittal is not sustainable either in equity
or in law.
D. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that in the matter of
Subhash Chand V/s State (Delhi Administration) (2013) 2 SCC 17,
it was held that once a case is instituted on a complaint and an
order of acquittal is passed, whether the offence be bailable or non-
bailable, cognizable or non-cognizable, the complainant can file an
application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for Special Leave
to Appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only in the High
Court.
E. That the Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered that
respondent has failed to establish any defence raised by him
throughout the trial and has miserably falled to establish that he
had taken the friendly loan for his wife’s treatment and not for the
purpose of business expansion.
F. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that as per the
respondent, he has claimed that he has repaid the entire loan
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 9 of 39
amount by transferring Rs. 3,40,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Forty
Thousand Only) by way of RTGS in favor of the Appellant as he
had only taken loan of Rs. 3. Lakhs from the Appellant, however,
this version of respondent is not in consonance with contents of
Exhibit CW-1/8 execution of which has been admitted by the 26
respondent himself during the trial.
G. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the respondent has
admitted the particulars filed in the cheque as well as the signature
on the cheque.
H. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that if it is proved that
the cheque belong to the Accused and if the signature in the cheque
is also not Disputed, then a legal presumption would arise in
favour of the complainant that the said cheque has been issued by
the accused in discharge of a debt or liability. However, the said
presumption is rebuttable in nature.
I. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the EX-CW1/8 was
duly admitted by the accused /respondent and the final outcome of
the cross examination clears the cloud that neither the accused was
beaten up by anyone nor threatened to do away with his life in his
presence.
J. That the Ld. Trial court has not taken into consideration that the
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the
appellant and that the onus would be upon the respondent to rebut
the presumption and for that, the respondent has to lead the
evidence, however in the facts of the case not a single evidence has
been led by the respondent to rebut the presumption under section
139 of the Act.
K. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the Supreme
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 10 of 39
Court in Modi Cements Ltd V. Κ.Κ. Nandi [1998]92 Comp Cas
88;[1998] 1 KLT 582 (SC) held that once the cheque is issued by
the drawer there would be a presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and the stoppage of payment will not
preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act. So, in this case in
which there is sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that
the respondent committed the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the order of
acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has to be
reversed and the accused shall be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
L. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the ordinarily in
cheque bouncing cases, what the courts have to consider is whether
the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act
have been met and if so, whether the respondent was able to rebut
the statutory presumption contemplated by Section 139 of the Act.
With respect to the facts of the present case, it must be clarified
that contrary to the trial court’s finding, Section 138 of the Act can
indeed be attracted when a cheque is dishonoured on account of
‘stop payment’ instructions sent by the respondent to his bank in
respect of a post-dated cheque, irrespective of insufficiency of
funds in the account. This position was clarified by this Court in
Goa Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D’Souza, 2003(2) RCR
(Criminal) 131: 2004(1) Apex Criminal 55: (2003) 3 SCC 232.
M. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in Barun Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC
Online Del 3498 has held that the fact that the loan is given in
violation of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act does not mean
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 11 of 39
that the court cannot look into the documents at all further held that
offence under Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act at best makes
an offence under Section 271 D of the IT Act but does not mean
that the loan has not been given by the Appellant to the opposite
party.
N. That the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly accepted the inconsistent
contentions of the respondent and has materially erred in not taking
into consideration that the presumption of legally enforceable debt
under Section 139 has to be rebutted by adducing cogent evidence
and mere surmises and conjectures cannot be said to have rebutted
the presumption in favour of the appellant. That the Ld. Trial Court
has indulged in mere ipsi-dixit in pronouncing the impugned order,
judgement of acquittal. That the Appellant/Appellant craves leave
to add, alter, amend or delete any ground or grounds at the time of
hearing, in the interest of justice.
15.During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for appellant relied
upon the judgment in case Ashok Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. 2025 LAW PACK (SC) 70793 in para no.22 & 23 wherein
it has been held that:-
“22. The High Court while allowing the criminal revision
has primarily proceeded on the presumption that it was
obligatory on the part of the complainant to establish his
case on the basis of evidence by giving the details of the
bank account as well as the date and time of the withdrawal
of the said amount which was given to the accused and also
the date and time of the payment made to the accused,
including the date and time of receiving of the cheque,
which has not been done in the present case. Pausing here,
such presumption on the complainant, by the High Court,CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 12 of 39
appears to be erroneous. The onus is not on the
complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial
wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the
cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour. Only if
an objection is raised that the complainant was not in a
financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to
have been given as a loan to the accused, only then the
complainant would have to bring before the Court cogent
material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and
had actually advanced the amount in question by way of
loan. In the case at hand, the appellant had categorically
stated in his deposition and reiterated in the cross-
examination that he had withdrawn the amount from the
bank in Faizabad (Typed Copy of his deposition in the
paperbook wrongly mentions this as ‘Firozabad’). The
Court ought not to have summarily rejected such stand,
more so when respondent no.2 did not make any serious
attempt to dispel/negate such stand/statement of the
appellant. Thus, on the one hand, the statement made
before the Court, both in examination-in-chief and cross-
examination, by the appellant with regard to withdrawing
the money from the bank for giving it to the accused has
been disbelieved whereas the argument on behalf of the
accused that he had not received any payment of any loan
amount has been accepted. In our decision in M/s S. S.
Production v. Tr. Pavithran Prasanth, 2024 INSC 1059, we
opined:
‘8. From the order impugned, it is clear that though the
contention of the petitioners was that the said amounts were
given for producing a film and were not by way of return of
any loan taken, which may have been a probable defence
for the petitioners in the case, but rightly, the High Court
has taken the view that evidence had to be adduced on thisCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 13 of 39
point which has not been done by the petitioners. Pausing
here, the Court would only comment that the reasoning of
the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court and
Trial Court on this issue is sound. Just by taking a counter-
stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus
on the complainant in such a case for the plea of defence
has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or
documentary, which in the present cases, has not been
done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant
had not proved the source of the money given to the
petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of
accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto,
would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques
having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not
been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the
respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in
question. In this regard, we may make profitable reference
to the decision in Tedhi Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant,
(2022) 6 SCC 735:
’10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted
that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the
complainant need not show in the first instance that he had
the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI
Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant
gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply
notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did
not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the
complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had
the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view
were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused
has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a
particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the
case of the accused is acceptable which he can do byCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 14 of 39
producing independent materials, namely, by examining his
witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him
to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the
materials produced by the complainant himself. He can
further, more importantly, achieve this result through the
cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant.
Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider
carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and
then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the
accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in
peril for the reason that the accused has established a
probable defence.’ (emphasis supplied)’ (underlining in
original; emphasis supplied by us in bold)
23. In the present case, on an overall circumspection of the
entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the
appellant succeeded in establishing his case and the Orders
passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not
warrant any interference. The High Court erred in
overturning the concurrent findings of guilt and
consequential conviction by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court.”
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
16.It has been argued on behalf of appellant that he was known to the
accused/respondent and had given friendly loan by way of cash to
the accused for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Further, the accused
returned the aforesaid amount by giving Rs.20,000/- as cash,
Rs.3,40,000/- by way of RTGS and remaining amount of
Rs.3,40,000/- was promised to be paid by way of cheque, which
was subsequently dishonoured. However, the amount was not
returned and for the same accused issued a cheque for an amount
of Rs.3,40,000/- to discharge his legal liability. Further, the cheque
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 15 of 39
in question was dishonoured due to fund insufficient. Upon the
aforesaid facts he had filed the complaint. It has been argued that
the issuance of cheque and signatures on the cheque is already
admitted by the accused and therefore, statutory presumption is
against the accused. It has been argued that the accused has not
discharged the burden of proof and therefore, he is liable to be
convicted and the impugned order and judgment dated 31.01.2023,
acquitting the accused is liable to be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
17.On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of
accused/respondent that the accused has been falsely implicated
and he had already returned the amount taken from the accused.
The accused had refuted the submissions made on behalf of
complainant and has denied that he had taken a loan of Rs.7 Lakhs.
The accused has stated that he had taken loan amount of Rs.3
Lakhs from the complainant during November-December, 2019. It
has also been argued that for the amount of Rs.3 Lakh accused had
already paid an amount of Rs.5Lakh approximately. He had paid
an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- by way of RTGS and Rs.20,000/- by
way of cash which is already admitted by the complainant and had
even paid more amount upon being forced by the complainant.
Further, it has been argued that the present appeal is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed and that the judgment regarding
acquittal of the accused passed by Ld. Trial Court is liable to be
upheld.
18.It is further submitted that since the reasonable doubt with respect
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 16 of 39
to the existence of the legally enforceable debt has been created,
the presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands rebutted, and the burden
to prove the existence of such legally enforceable debt shifts from
the shoulders of the Accused of the Section 138 proceedings falls
upon the shoulder of the Complainant of such proceedings. It is
further submitted that once the presumption under Section 139
read with Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
stands rebutted, and the Complainant of the proceedings fails to
prove the existence of the debt, the case under Section 138 is liable
to be dismissed.
19.It has further been argued that, the Appellant herein has miserably
failed in proving the existence of the legally enforceable debt,
which has been categorically recorded by the Ld. Trial Court in
Paragraph No.20 and 26 of the Impugned Judgment, and hence, it
is abundantly clear that the Respondent has successfully created
the doubt towards the existence of the Legally Enforceable Debt,
which is a crucial aspect of the prosecution under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and once such doubt is
created, the presumption of the existence of such debt under
Section 139 stands rebutted, and once the same is rebutted, the
Appellant burden to prove the existence of the such legally
enforceable debt falls upon the Appellant, and in this case, the
Appellant has failed miserably in the same, and hence, the Ld.
Trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the Appellant
herein.
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 17 of 39
20.Ld. Counsel for respondent in support of the aforementioned
contentions rely upon the findings of the judgements passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India K.N. Beena vs. Muniyappan
[(2001) 8 SCC 458]; Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa [(2019) 5
SCC 418]; K. S. Ranganatha vs. Vittal Shetty [(2022) 16 SCC
683]; Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai
Patel & Anr. [(2023) 1 SCC 578].
FINDINGS
21.Before proceeding further, I must mention the relevant law
pertaining to sec. 138 NI Act.
22.In order to appreciate and decide present appeal, I find it relevant
to mention here law relating to Section 138 NI Act and with
respect to the presumptions U/s. 118 (a) and 139 NI Act. The said
provisions and the interpretations given by higher echelon of
Judiciary, are relevant. Therefore, they are mentioned below:-
“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 madeCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 18 of 39
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 with 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.”
23. Hon’ble Apex Court had the occasion to appreciate and
interpret aforesaid provision in case titled as Kusum Ingots and
Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 745.
In the said judgment Hon’ble court observed that in order to
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 19 of 39
successfully prosecute the drawer of a cheque for an offence U/s.
138 NI Act, following facts are required to be proved successfully.
“a) A person must have drawn 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 for discharge of any debt
or other liability.
b) That 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, which ever is earlier.
c) That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because the amount of money standing to
the credit of the account is insufficient to honour
the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged
to be paid from that account by an agreement
made with the bank.
d) The payee or the holder in the due course of the
cheque makes a demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving a notice in
writing to the drawer of the cheque, within 15
days of the receipt of the information by him
from the bank regarding the return of the cheque
as unpaid.
e) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or the
holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days
of the receipt of said notice……….”
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 20 of 39
“………….Judicial statements have deferred as to the
quantum of rebutting evidence required. In
Kundun Lal Rallaram Vs. Custodian, Evacuee
Property, Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1316, this Court
held that the presumption of law under Section
118 of presumption of fact raised under Section
114 of the Evidence Act. The decision must be
limited to the facts of that case. The more
authoritative view has been laid down in the
subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in
Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of
Maharashtra : 1964 Cri. L 1437 : 1964 Cril 1437,
where this Court reiterated the principle
enunciated in State of Madras v. Vaidyanath Iyer
(supra) and clarified that the distinction between
the two kinds of presumption lay not only in the
mandate to the Court, but also in the nature of
evidence required to rebut the two. In the case of
a discretionary presumption the presumption if
drawn may be rebutted by an explanation which
“might reasonably be true and which is
consistent with the innocence” of accused. On the
other hand in the case of mandatory presumption
“the burden resting on the accused person in such
a case would not be as light as it is where a
presumption is raised under S.114 of the
Evidence act and cannot be held to be discharged
merely by reason of the fact that the explanation
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 21 of 39
offered by the accused is reasonable and
probable. It must further be shown that the
explanation is a true one. The words ‘unless the
contrary is proved’ which occur in this provision
make it clear that the presumption has to be
rebutted by ‘proof’ and not by a bare explanation
which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be
proved when its existence is directly established
or when upon the material before it the court
finds its existence to be so probable that a
reasonable man would act on the supposition that
it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is
supported by proof, the presumption created by
provision cannot be said to be rebutted……”
24. Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of NI Act are mentioned in
verbatim below :-
“Section 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, was indorsed, negotiated or transferred
for consideration;”
“Section 139 : Presumption in favour of holder –
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary isCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 22 of 39
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.”
25.It is a well settled legal position that the presumptions U/s. 118 and
139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions and the burden lies on the
accused to prove that he had no liability/debt on the date of issue
of the cheque. It is also a settled principle of law that to bring
home an offence under any of the penal provisions, it is essential to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the ingredients of the
offence should be satisfied. Hon’ble Apex court had the occasion to
appreciate the aforesaid provisions in certain case laws which are
relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. The
relevant observations of the said case laws are mentioned in my
subsequent paragraphs.
26. In case titled as M.S. Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala, 6 SCC
39, it was held that;
“While dealing with that aspect in a case under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, this court held that presumptions under
sections 118 (a) and 139 of the Act are
rebuttable and the standard of proof required for
such rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities
and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
Court observed:
In terms of section 4 of the Evidence Act
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 23 of 39
whenever it is provided by the Act that the court
shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as
proved unless and until it is disproved. The
words “proved” and “disproved” have been
defined in section 3 of the Evidence Act (the
interpretation clause).
Applying the said definitions of “proved or
“disproved” to the principle behind section 118
(a) of the Act, the court shall presume a
negotiable instrument to be for consideration
unless and until after considering the matter
before it, it either believes that the consideration
does not exist or considers the non-existence of
the consideration so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular
case, to act upon the supposition that the
consideration does not exist. For rebutting such
presumption, what is needed is to raise a
probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the
evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant
could be relied upon.
The standard of proof evidently is
preponderance of probabilities. Inference of
preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not
only from the materials on record but also by
reference to the circumstances upon which the
relies.
Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 24 of 39
conclusively established but such evidence must
be adduced before the court in support of the
defence to exist or consider its existence to be
reasonable probable, the standard of
reasonability being that of the “prudent man”.
27.In Case titled as Hiten P.Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2011) 6
SCC 16 it was held as under:-
“Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not
conflict with the presumption of innocence,
because by the latter all that is meant is that the
prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation
on the prosecution may be discharged with the help
of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused
adduces evidence showing the reasonable
possibility of the non-existence of the presumed
fact.
In other words, provided the facts required to form
the basis of a presumption of law exists, no
discretion is left with the court but to draw the
statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the
person against whom the presumption is drawn
from rebutting it and proving the contrary.”
28.Hon’ble Apex court in case titled as Krishna Janardhan Bhatt Vs.
Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 observed;
“Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 25 of 39
the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable
doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a
defence on the part of an accused is
‘preponderance of probabilities’. 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 he relies.”
“Statute mandates raising of presumption but it
stops at that. It does not say how presumption
drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other
important principles of legal jurisprudence,
namely, presumption of innocence as human
rights and the doctrine of reverse burden
introduced by Section 139 should be delicately
balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would
largely depend upon the factual matrix of each
case, the materials brought on record and having
regard to legal principles governing the same.”
29. Further, in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company
Vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal (1999) 3 SCC 35 it was observed as
under:-
“Upon consideration of various judgments as
noted hereinabove, the position of law which
emerges is that once execution of the promissory
note is admitted, the presumption under SectionCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 26 of 39
118(a) would arise that it is supported by a
consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.
The defendant can prove the non-existence of a
consideration by raising a probable defence. If the
defendant is proved to have discharged the initial
onus of proof showing that the existence of
consideration was improbable or doubtful or the
same was illegal, the onus would shift to the
plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a
matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would
disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of
the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the
defendant of proving the non-existence of
consideration can be either direct or by bringing
on record the preponderance of probabilities by
reference to the circumstances upon which he
relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled
under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the
case including that of the plaintiff as well. In
case, where the defendant fails to discharge the
initial onus of proof by showing the non-
existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would
invariably be held entitled to the benefit of
presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his
favour. The court may not insist upon the
defendant to disprove the existence of
consideration by leading direct evidence as the
existence of negative evidence is neither possibleCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 27 of 39
nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen
with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of
the consideration apparently does not appear to
be any defence. Something which is probable has
to be brought on record for getting the benefit of
shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To
disprove the presumption, the defendant has to
bring on record such facts and circumstances
upon consideration of which the court may either
believe that the consideration did not exist or its
non-existence was so probable that a prudent man
would, under the circumstances of the case, shall
act upon the plea that it did not exist.”
“Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse
onus clause that has been included in furtherance
of the legislative objective of improving the
credibility of negotiable instruments. While
Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal
remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques,
the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a
device to prevent undue delay in the course of
litigation. However, it must be remembered that
the offence made punishable by Section 138 can
be better described as a regulatory offence since
the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature
of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined
to the private parties involved in commercial
transactions.”
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 28 of 39
“In the absence of compelling justification,
reverse onus clauses usually impose an
evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
Keeping this in view, it is settled position that
when an accused has to rebut the “preponderance
of probabilities”. Therefore, if the accused is able
to raise a probable defence which creates doubts
about the existence of a legally enforceable debt
or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified
in citations, the accused can rely on the materials
submitted by the complainant in order to raise
such a defence and it is conceivable that in some
cases the accused may not need to adduce
evidence of his/her own.”
30.In Case titled as M/s. Kumar Exports Vs. M/s. Sharma Carpets Crl.
Appeal No. 2045 of 2008 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, it was held as under:
“When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points
out that the party on whom lies the duty of going
forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and
when that party has produced evidence fairly and
reasonably tending to show that the real fact is
not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption
is over. 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 theCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 29 of 39
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 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 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 server 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 fromCA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 30 of 39
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.”
31.In Case titled as John K. John v. Tom Varghese 2007 (4) Civil
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 31 of 39
Court Cases 690 (S.C), it was held as under:-
“…..Presumption raised in terms of Section 139 of
the Act is rebuttable. If, upon analysis of the
evidence brought on records by the parties, in a
fact situation obtaining in the instant case, a
finding of fact has been arrived at by the High
Court that the cheques had not been issued by the
respondent in discharge of any debt, in our
opinion, the view of the High Court cannot be
said to be perverse warranting interference by us
in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High
Court was entitled to take notice of the conduct of
the parties. It has been found by the High Court s
of fact that the complainant did not approach the
court with clean hands. His conduct was not that
of a prudent man. Why no instrument was
executed although a huge sum of money was
allegedly paid to the respondent was a relevant
question which could be posed in the matter. It
was open to the High Court to draw its own
conclusion therein. Not only no document had
been executed, even no interest had been
charged…..”
32.Above case laws therefore, indicate that presumptions u/s 118 &
139 N.I.Act are rebuttable in nature. Accused needs not to rebut
those presumptions, through defence evidence only. He can do so
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 32 of 39
by cross examining complainant witnesses. It is for complainant, to
prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Now, whether
complainant proves his case beyond reasonable doubt and whether
aforesaid presumptions are rebutted by accused vary from case to
case. This is the understanding of law, which I have based on
above case laws and based on which I am proceeding further, in
this judgment.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
33.Reverting back to the facts of the present case, I find that case of
complainant/appellant is that he had extended friendly loan to the
accused/respondent who was his friend and known to him for 10-
15 years. It has been averred that the aforesaid loan was for an
amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, which was given by the complainant by
way of cash. Further, in discharge of legal liability the
accused/respondent repaid Rs.3,40,000/- by way of RTGS and
Rs.20,000/- by way of cash in the month of September, 2021 and
for the same purpose accused allegedly issued two cheques. Since,
the accused had paid the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- by way of
RTGS, the complainant had returned one of the cheque but the
other cheque (cheque in question bearing no.052105 drawn on
Central Bank of India Baitalpur Branch Deoria 274201) was
dishonoured upon presentation with remarks payment stopped by
drawer.
34.Upon dishonour of cheque the complainant/appellant issued a legal
notice dated 06.12.2021 and the same was received by the
respondent/accused and he filed his reply on 20.12.2021
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 33 of 39
Ex.CW1/7. However, the complainant filed the present complaint
before the Ld. Trial Court. The complainant relied upon his
evidence by way of affidavit, and other documents Ex.CW1/1 to
Ex.CW1/8 in support of his claims.
35.Ld. Counsel for complainant has primarily taken the grounds of
appeal, stating that the Ld. Trial Court did not take into
consideration that the cheque was issued by the accused/
respondent and had admitted his signature on the same and
therefore, the complainant has discharged the burden of proof
regarding the liability upon the accused and since it was upon the
accused to rebut the same, which he has failed in the present matter
and therefore, he was liable to be convicted.
36.On the other hand on behalf of respondent, the respondent had
refuted the claims made by the complainant and has categorically
stated that he had returned the amount, taken from the
complainant/appellant and the cheque in question was with the
complainant and he refused to return back and misused the same.
37.The complainant/appellant during cross examination had stated
that he was working as a free lancer in a real estate and accused
had approached him for seeking loan in January-February, 2019.
No written document was executed at the time of advancement of
loan. He had not reflected the loan amount in his ITR for the
relevant assessment year. Further, he had not obtained any cheque
from the accused when he advanced him loan. He admitted that he
had received Rs.20,000/- as cash on 26.09.2021 and two cheques
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 34 of 39
on the same day for an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- each . He admitted
his signature on document Mark-A which was a photocopy of a
cheque in question. he did not remember the cheque number of the
other cheque which was handed over to him by the accused and
was returned by him. Further he admitted that no document was
executed qua return of the other cheque. He further admitted that
some amount had been paid by the accused even prior to COVID
but same was pertaining to some other transaction. Further,
complainant admitted document Mark B which was pertaining to
details of payment made by accused to him. Complainant also
admitted document Ex.CW1/8 which was the original hand written
letter of the accused and submitted that the same was written in his
presence by the accused. He further admitted that in the aforesaid
document there was no mention regarding advancement of loan of
Rs.7 Lakh to the accused. Further that the document Ex. CW1/8
was not signed by the complainant. He denied that accused was
forced to sign upon the document Ex. CW1/8.
38.In the present matter, the complainant during his cross examination
admitted regarding repayments made by the complainant at
different point of time which are reflected in document Mark B on
different dates. For the aforesaid the explanation given by accused
was that, they pertained to some other transactions. Further, the
complainant admitted that he had not signed on document Ex.
CW1/8 which was allegedly the document written by accused. The
aforesaid alleged document Ex.CW1/8 no where mentions
regarding loan amount of Rs.7 Lakhs. Further, the document does
not bear the signature of complainant Manav Kapoor. The
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 35 of 39
complainant did not examine any of the witnesses of the aforesaid
document namely Manoj Kumar and Satish to prove the same.
However, one of the witnesses namely Satish has been examined
by the accused during his defence evidence. DW2 Satish deposed
in favour of complainant and had categorically stated the manner
in which the complainant had repaid the amount to accused.
Further the defence taken by accused regarding being threatened
by the complainant, and forcing him to issue the cheque is
supported by the witness DW2 Satish.
39.The complainant failed to mention regarding the date, time or
place when such loan was extended to the accused and also did not
mention the name of any person in whose presence such friendly
loan was extended. Though the complainant in the present matter
has claimed that he had extended loans by giving cash from his
account, the same does not find mention in his complaint. Further,
the complainant did not place on record any document to show if
any cash was withdrawn by him from his account, before
extending loan of Rs.7 Lakhs to the accused in the year 2019, in
the month of January-February.
40.Complainant had admitted that no document was executed between
him and the accused, when he extended loan of Rs.7 Lakhs. It is
difficult to believe the complainant had extended loan to the
accused without entering into any written agreement and it would
have been prudent for him to extend the loan by way of a bank
transfer, rather than withdrawing cash and then handing over the
same to the accused/respondent. The aforesaid facts have already
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 36 of 39
been appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment
and the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
41.The presumption against the accused/respondent, was substantially
shaken by the respondent against the case of the complainant. For
proving the said fact, accused examined himself as a witnesses in
his defence and also examined Satish as DW2.
42.Since, complainant had moved the court, so as per sec. 101 Indian
Evidence Act, burden rested upon him for proving his case beyond
reasonable doubt. In his cross-examination, complainant was asked
questions with regard to his income and occupation, with regard to
his businesses and regarding him filing Income Tax Return (In
short ‘ITR’). He was also asked questions regarding different
transactions for which complainant stated that there were monetary
transactions between the accused prior to filing of the present
complaint, however, the same were not substantiated by the
complainant by leading any cogent evidence. He was also
questioned with regard to the mode of payment of loan amount to
accused, for which he stated that he had paid in cash, however, no
document with respect to the same was ever executed by the
complainant. All those aspects were relevant, for the reason that
accused had taken the same as his defence in his statement
recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of notice and even
subsequently, during the cross examination of CW1 and in his
statement u/sec. 313 CrPC.
43.The complainant did not examine any witness in support of his
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 37 of 39
claim that all the amounts during the period were handed over to
the accused.
44.Presumptions u/sec. 118 and 139 NI Act, therefore, were not raised
against accused. Accused while cross-examining complainant gave
specific suggestion, to the effect that he had not issued the cheque
in question towards any legal liability but was issued as a security
cheque. While cross-examining complainant, accused did
specifically asked and confront the complainant with regard to the
manner in which cheque amount in question was handed over to
him. Infact, complainant failed to explain in his cross-examination
the questions put to him regarding being known to the accused and
the mode and manner of handing over the alleged cash amount
during the alleged period to the accused/respondent. So, accused/
respondent succeeded to cull out any relevant fact pertaining to
absence of his liability to pay cheque amount in question or with
regard to repayment of loan amount in question to complainant.
45.Testimony of complainant, as such failed the test of cross-
examination. I did not believe the testimony of complainant/
appellant to be trustworthy and reliable.
46.The net result is that complainant was unable to prove his case
beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of his evidence. Accused
succeeded to raise probable defence and rebut presumptions u/s
118 read with Section 139 N.I. Act. Ld. Trial Court rightly
acquitted the accused/respondent vide impugned judgment. As
such, impugned judgment needs no interference. Present appeal
with respect to the judgment of acquittal stands dismissed.
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 38 of 39
47.Impugned judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court is hereby upheld.
48.Copy of the present order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for
information.
Digitally signed
by Sheetal
Sheetal chaudhary
chaudhary Date:
2026.07.10
14:04:56 +0530
Announced in open Court [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02/South East District
Saket Courts/New Delhi/10.07.2026 (vk)
CA No.379/2025 Manav Kapoor vs. Veer Bahadur Page No. 39 of 39
