The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man in a cheque dishonour case, ruling that merely claiming a cheque was issued as a security instrument is not enough to escape liability under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. The Court found that the accused failed to produce any reliable evidence to support his defence or rebut the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by Pardeep Kumar, challenging the orders of the trial court and the appellate court which had convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, the petitioner had issued a cheque of ₹2.5 lakh towards repayment of a loan. The cheque was returned unpaid with the remark "Account Closed." After a legal notice remained unanswered and the amount was not paid within the prescribed period, criminal proceedings were initiated.
Before the courts, the petitioner admitted that the cheque bore his signature but argued that it had been handed over as a blank security cheque. He also claimed that the actual loan was only ₹50,000 and had already been repaid with interest.
Court's Observation
Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that the defence remained unsupported by any documentary material. The Court observed that the petitioner did not produce records showing repayment of the alleged loan, nor any complaint or other evidence indicating that the security cheque had been misused.
The bench observed,
"This Court does not find even a shred of evidence or substantiation" for the petitioner's claims regarding repayment or the alleged security cheque, holding that he failed to dislodge the statutory presumption under the NI Act.
The High Court further held that once the complainant proved the essential ingredients under Section 138 including the cheque, dishonour memo, legal notice and non-payment—the burden shifted to the accused. Since that burden was not discharged, arguments regarding the complainant's financial capacity, source of funds or income tax records could not affect the outcome.
Decision
Finding no illegality, perversity or error in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition. It upheld the conviction, the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment, and the direction to pay a fine of ₹3.5 lakh, with a further default sentence as ordered by the trial court.
The Court also directed that the petitioner be taken into judicial custody to serve the remaining sentence.
Case Details
Case Title: Pardeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 271/2024
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decision Date: July 22, 2026
