$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 101/2015 OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate with Petitioner.

versus M/S SANGAM ELECTRONICS & ANR .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 04.07.2025

1. The present application filed under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [“BNSS”] (Corresponding to Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“CrPC”]) seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 30^th September, 2014, passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (South)-01, NI Act, Saket Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the Appellant’s complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881³ in CC No. 4386/1 titled as Om Prakash v. Sangam Electronics

2. The case of the Appellant, in brief, is as follows:

2.1. Om Prakash (Appellant), who owns a private business, filed a complaint against Rajiv Tyagi (Respondent No. 2), who is the proprietor of M/s Sangam Electronics (Respondent No. 1), under Section 138 of the NI CRL.L.P. 101/2015 Page 1 of 10 Act. The Appellant alleged that Respondent No. 2, a close friend, approached him in need of a friendly loan of INR 30,000 to expand his electronics business. Trusting this request, the Appellant advanced an amount of INR 27,000 in cash, between May and August 2010, on the assurance that the amount would be repaid by November-December 2010. In part discharge of this liability, Respondent No. 2 issued a cheque bearing No. 412716 dated 10^th July, 2011, for a sum of INR 6 lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with the remark “account closed”.

2.2. Consequently, a demand notice under Section 138 of NI Act was issued, calling upon the Respondents to make the payment of the cheque amount. Despite service, there was no response or payment forthcoming, compelling the Appellant to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

2.3. During trial, the Appellant examined himself as CW-1 and Respondent No. 2 deposed as DW-1. After evaluating the evidence and arguments, the Trial Court held that the Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the alleged loan transaction. In view of this, the Trial Court acquitted Respondent No. 2, giving him the benefit of doubt.

3. Aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal urging the following grounds:

3.1. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that, once the issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon were admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act stood triggered. Consequently, the burden shifted upon the Respondents to rebut this presumption by raising a credible

3 “NI Act”

CRL.L.P. 101/2015 Page 2 of 10 defence, which, according to the Appellant, they have failed to discharge.

3.2. The Trial Court overlooked the uncontroverted fact that he had advanced a sum of INR 27 lakh to the Respondents for the purpose of expanding their electronics business, and that the cheque in question was issued towards partial repayment of this financial liability.

3.3. Additionally, it is argued that the Respondents have sought to deflect liability by introducing the name of their employee, Sunil Singh, alleging that the disputed financial dealings were, in fact, with him. Pertinently, Sunil Singh was never produced as a witness before the Trial Court to substantiate this claim. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the Respondents’ defence remains uncorroborated and, in any case, does not sufficiently rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139.

4. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced but finds no merit in the grounds urged. The Trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence on record and, in the opinion of this Court, rightly concluded that the presumption in favour of the Complainant stood rebutted on the facts and circumstances of this case. At this juncture, before delving into the merits in detail, it would be apposite to first recapitul