Cheques issued under Section 138 of the NI Act create a presumption of legally enforceable liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of these three revision petitions, the petitioner has assailed his conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter 'NI Act'], in Complaint Cases Nos. 669/1/2007, 670/1/2007 and 671/1/2007, wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 11.10.2012 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2012, by the learned MM-02 (NI Act), South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Trial Court'], which were upheld by way of the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 18, 19 and 20 of 2014 by the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Appellate Court'].

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are as follows:

The complainant (respondent no. 1 herein) had filed complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act against five accused persons, i.e. M/s Vasu Tech Limited (accused no. 1), Sh. Dhruv Varma (accused no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 herein), Sh. R.L. Varma (accused no. 3), Smt. Aruna Varma (accused no. 4) and M/s Ratan Lal Varma & Sons (HUF) (accused no. 5 and petitioner no. 2 herein). It was alleged that the complainant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 19.10.2001 with accused no. 5 in respect of a flat/space admeasuring 4000 sq. ft. super area on the 4th Floor of Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as advance consideration by cheque, and since the premises was under tenancy of M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., it was agreed that the rent of the said portion would stand assigned to the complainant. The balance sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- was paid by the complainant partly in cash and partly through security transfer, whereupon a flat buyer agreement was executed. A separate receipt acknowledging receipt of the balance amount was executed by accused no. 2 on behalf of and duly authorised by accused no. 5. At the time of execution of the flat buyer agreement, accused nos. 2 to 4 requested the complainant not to claim rent of about Rs.2,50,000/- per month, representing that their closely held family company, accused no. 1, was in urgent need of funds for development of a technological project. It was proposed that the rent received from the tenant would be utilised by accused no. 1 as an advance from the complainant, against which post-dated cheques for Rs.35,00,000/- per year towards annual rent, along with an additional Rs.5,00,000/-, would be issued. The accused further represented that the amount would be acknowledged by accused no. 1 through promissory notes and acknowledgments of debt. Relying upon the representations and considering his prior dealings with accused nos. 2 to 5, the complainant agreed to the arrangement. Accordingly, accused no.1 issued post-dated cheques of Rs.35,00,000/- along with promissory notes and acknowledgments of receipt and utilisation of funds. Before the due dates, the accused sought extensions on the ground that the project was under development, and fresh cheques were issued upon return of the earlier ones. This practice continued for subsequent years, with cheques of Rs.35,00,000/- being issued annually towards rent received, each secured by acknowledgments and promissory notes. It was further alleged that accused nos. 2, 3 and 5 agreed to compensate the complainant for losses arising from failure to refund the security deposit of a tenant, ABN Amro Bank, in respect of another jointly-owned premises on the 9th