Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court

“Mere Denial Not Enough To Rebut Cheque Presumption Under NI Act ”, Delhi High Court reaffirmed the strict statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and upheld the conviction of a police officer for issuing a dishonoured cheque. Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the criminal revision petition, reiterating that “mere denial or bald assertions” by the accused were insufficient to rebut the legal presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. The case provides significant clarity on the rebuttal threshold under cheque dishonour law, privity of contract, and scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Execution of Cheque Not Disputed – Presumption of Debt Attracted

The Court began its analysis by underlining the core presumption that arises once the execution of a cheque and service of legal notice are admitted. Referring to the settled position of law, Justice Banerjee observed:

“Since execution of the cheque and the receipt of the legal notice are admitted, a presumption arises in favour of the holder of the cheque… that it was issued in discharge, either in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or liability.”

This statutory presumption, the Court clarified, shifts the burden to the accused, who must then discharge it by leading direct evidence or pointing out serious inconsistencies in the complainant’s case.

“The cheque involved [Ex. CWI/B] is a valid instrument issued for dispensing a legal debt,” the Court concluded.

Defence of Theft and Absence of Privity – No Evidence, Only 313 CrPC Statement

The petitioner, a Delhi Police official, attempted to escape liability by alleging that the cheque was “stolen” and that he had no direct contractual relationship with the complainant, as the MoU was executed between the complainant and his brother. However, the Court found no cogent material or documentary evidence to support such claims.

His entire defence, the Court noted, rested solely on his statement under Section 313 CrPC – which, while a part of the trial, is insufficient by itself to rebut a strong statutory presumption.

“Since, undisputedly the petitioner refused to lead any evidence before the learned Trial Court, his defence was based on his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which discloses that he was unable to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court held.

Cheque Issued Voluntarily for Joint Transaction – Privity Not Essential

Rejecting the argument that the petitioner could not be held liable for a cheque issued for his brother’s liability, the Court held that the cheque was issued voluntarily and in the context of a joint business transaction.

Justice Banerjee quoted the lower court’s findings:

“There was nothing suspicious or unbelievable about accused/appellant issuing cheque in question on behalf of his brother in favour of respondent/complainant towards payment of his share in profit. It is reiterated that appellant is an employee of Delhi Police… His criminal liability becomes even more pronounced in view of his profession.”

This observation struck directly at the credibility of the petitioner’s defence and reinforced the principle that actual issuance of the cheque, even for another’s liability, attracts penal consequences if it was done voluntarily and knowingly.

Limitation Runs From Date of Dishonour, Not MoU

Addressing the plea that the underlying MoU dated 2009 made the complaint time-barred, the Court categorically rejected this contention:

“It was the date of issuance of cheque and dishonour thereof that is relevant to compute limitation in complaint case filed U/s. 138 NI Act; the date of MOU had no relevancy in computation of limitation period.”

The complaint, filed in 2017 after the cheque was dishonoured on 18.05.2017, was found to be well within the statutory time frame.

Proprietorship of Payee Firm Not A Bar To Maintainability

Another ground raised by the petitioner was that the complainant failed to prove he was the sole proprietor of M/s Farhan Empexo Export and Import Co., the named payee on the cheque. This was also rejected outright.

“Since the Cheque involved [Ex. CWI/B] was issued under the name of M/s Farhan Empexo Export and Import Co., there was no requirement for the respondent to show his relationship with it.”

The Court held that in the absence of a serious dispute affecting issuance, such objections do not go to the root of maintainability.

Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not A Forum For Re-Appreciation of Evidence

The High Court finally reiterated the circumscribed scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. It held that neither an alternate reading of evidence nor minor inconsistencies justified interference when both the trial and appellate courts had rendered reasoned concurrent findings.

“The petitioner can neither be allowed to reagitate the very same issues which have been duly negated twice over nor to raise any new/ fresh grounds herein.”

“Finding no illegality and/ or perversity therein, no grounds are made out for setting aside of the impugned judgement,” the Court concluded.

The original conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 26.04.2022 and 07.05.2022 respectively—wherein the petitioner was directed to pay ₹12,50,000/- to the complainant or undergo six months’ simple imprisonment—were upheld in toto. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 9th February 2026