The accused's burden to disprove receipt of loan under Section 138 N.I. Act must be established with cogent evidence, citing precedents on proof of debt and the validity of cash transactions.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Sisodia (Convict) to challenge the Order dated 22.07.2025 of learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, who has upheld his Conviction dated 20.05.2023 and the Order on Sentence dated 12.12.2023 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’).

2. Briefly stated, the Respondent/Parvesh Dabas (the Complainant) had filed a Complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act wherein it was asserted that he had given a friendly loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash on 10.03.2015 to the Petitioner/Ramesh Kumar Sisodia (the Convict/Accused), on the assurance that the amount shall be returned by the Petitioner, in three months.

3. In order to secure the loan amount, a post-dated Cheque bearing No.814272 dated 10.06.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- and also a Promissory Note, were executed by the Petitioner. The cheque, however, on presentation, was dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient” vide Bank Return Memo dated 23.07.2015. Legal Notice dated 13.08.2015 was served, despite which the Petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount. Consequently, the Complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the Respondent.

4. The Petitioner was summoned and thereafter, Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was framed on 28.01.2017, to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial. The Petitioner took the defence that the Cheque in question and the Promissory Note, was taken by the Complainant as security for loan of Rs.4,00,000/-, which were executed in advance, but no loan whatsoever was given to the Petitioner.

5. The Complainant, namely, Mr. Parvesh Dabas (the Respondent herein) examined himself as CW-1 and proved the Promissory Note, Ex.CW-1/A; the Cheque, Ex.CW-1/B and the Return Memo of the Bank, Ex.CW-1/C. The Legal Notice and the Postal Receipt were proved as Ex.CW-1/D, Ex.CW-1/E and Ex.CW-1/F, respectively.

6. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied taking the loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. He claimed that the Cheque had been given by him as a security in advance, but no loan was disbursed to him. The Petitioner has signed a blank Promissory Note. He also claimed that the Legal Notice had not been sent to his correct address, which is Third Floor, House No. 144, Village Rajapur, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi.

7. The Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide Judgment dated 20.05.2023 and was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for four months and directed to pay Compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Respondent under Section 357 Cr.P.C. vide Order on Sentence dated 12.12.2023.

8. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the First Appeal bearing CA No. 30/2024 before the learned ASJ but the Appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 22.07.2025.

9. The Petitioner was taken into custody by the Appellate Court on 22.07.2025, since then he is in the Tihar Jail.

10. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned ASJ, the present Petition has been filed to challenge the impugned Judgment.

11. The main grounds of challenge are that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate various admissions made by the C