$~7 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 945/2019 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1581/2019 AMIT ARORA .....Petitioner versus PUNJAB & SIND BANK .....Respondent With CRL.REV.P. 946/2019, CRL.REV.P. 947/2019, CRL.REV.P.

948/2019 & CRL.REV.P. 949/2019 For Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Manchanda, Mr. Saksham, Ms. Riya Nagar, Advocates.

For Respondent: Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 24.11.2025

1. The above-captioned revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“CrPC”] assail a common order dated 28^th August, 2019, passed by the Sessions Court, whereby the criminal appeals preferred by the Petitioner against his conviction and sentence for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, [“NI Act”], in five separate cases, have been dismissed. Consequently, the orders on sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate have been affirmed.

2. Considering the fact that all the petitions rest on a common factual matrix and involve identical grounds of challenge based on evidence that was common to all complaints, it is considered appropriate to decide them together by this composite order.

3. The relevant facts, as emerging from the record, are as follows:

3.1. Punjab & Sind Bank (the Respondent) instituted separate complaints under Section 138 NI Act, each arising out of a different cheque issued by the Petitioner, Amit Arora. The cheques were drawn on the Petitioner’s personal bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Shivaji Marg, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured, and despite service of statutory notices of demand, the Petitioner allegedly failed to make payment of the cheque amounts within the stipulated time, thereby constituting offence under Section 138 NI Act.

3.2. In the complaints, Punjab & Sind Bank alleged that M/s Global Trade Resources had availed various credit facilities from the Bank, including a car loan, and was operating an account with it in the normal course of business. The Petitioner was stated to be a partner of the said firm. It was the Bank’s case that, in discharge of the firm’s outstanding liabilities, the Petitioner, acting as partner, issued the cheques in question in favour of M/s Global Trade Resources so that, upon honour, the proceeds would be credited directly into the firm’s account with Punjab & Sind Bank and appropriated towards the dues.

3.3. Punjab & Sind Bank, therefore, maintained the separate complaints as the creditor and intended beneficiary of the cheque proceeds, asserting that the amounts, though payable on the face of the instruments to M/s Global Trade Resources, were meant to be received and adjusted by the Bank in the firm’s account.

4. After recording pre-summoning evidence, the Trial Court took cognizance and summoned the Petitioner. By order dated 20^th October, 2016, notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed, to which the Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In defence, he examined himself as DW-1 and also examined one Arun Kochar as DW-2. The Complainant witnesses, however, was not subjected to any cross-examination and went unrebutted.

5. Mr. Vikas Manchanda, counsel for the Petitioner, assails the impugned orders on several grounds, which, in substance, are as follows:

5.1. The statutory demand notices under Section 138 NI Act and the averments in the respective complaints are materially at variance. In the demand notices, the Bank specifically stated that the cheques had been issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Bank, whereas in the complaints it is alleged that the cheques were issued in the name of M/s Global Trade Resources. This inconsistency goes to the root of the matter and renders the complaints non-maintainable, as the foundational requirement of a valid and consistent demand notice is not satisfied.

5.2. The complaints are defective for non-joinder of a necessary party. The Bank’s own case is that th