Pardeep Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the appellate order affirming the petitioner’s conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The complaint arose from the dishonour of a cheque for ₹2,50,000, issued towards repayment of an alleged loan of ₹2,50,000, which was returned unpaid with the remark “Account Closed.” After service of a legal notice, the petitioner neither replied nor made payment within the statutory period, resulting in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The petitioner admitted signing the cheque and receiving the legal notice but contended that he had borrowed only ₹50,000 by cheque, repaid the amount with interest, and had issued the cheque as a blank security cheque which was subsequently misused. He also argued that the complainant failed to establish the alleged cash loan through receipts, books of account, income tax returns, or proof of financial capacity, and relied upon various judicial precedents.
The respondent submitted that all statutory requirements under Section 138 had been established through the cheque, return memo, legal notice, postal receipt and tracking report. It was further contended that the petitioner had produced no documentary evidence of repayment or any complaint seeking return of the alleged security cheque. The respondent relied on decisions holding that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remain operative unless rebutted by cogent evidence.
