SUSHIL PRASAD VERMA vs NARESH KUMAR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 15100

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 15100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Madhu Jain, J
SUSHIL PRASAD VERMA – Appellant
Versus
NARESH KUMAR – Respondent
CRL.REV.P.(NI) 230/2026 | CRL.M.A. 19750/2026 | CRL.M.(BAIL) 1285/2026

Important Points

Condonation of delay requires a bona fide, substantiated explanation; bare allegations against counsel are insufficient. Furthermore, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act are only rebutted by a consistent, probable defense, not by shifting versions or bare denials.

Subject

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.438, S.442, S.528
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: S.138, S.118(a), S.139, S.145(2)
Limitation Act, 1963: S.5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.251, S.313

Headnote

The petitioner challenged the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court. The case involved a dishonoured cheque of Rs. 2,55,000, where the petitioner claimed the cheque was issued as security for a smaller loan of Rs. 29,200 from a third party. The petitioner also sought condonation of a 603-day delay in filing the revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, attributing the delay to the default of previous counsel. The court framed the issues around the bona fides of the explanation for the delay and whether the petitioner had successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. The court reasoned that a bare, unsubstantiated allegation against a previous counsel does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning a substantial delay. Regarding the merits, the court held that the petitioner's defense was shifting and contradictory, failing to meet the standard of preponderance of probabilities required to displace the statutory presumptions. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Puja Bhusari Soni, Deepjyot Singh
For the Respondents: None

Table of Content
1. procedural history and filing of the revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 14)
2. factual background of the cheque dishonour and lower court convictions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. petitioner's contentions regarding the loan and the delay in filing. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. requirement of bona fide explanation for condonation of delay. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. statutory presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the ni act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. failure to rebut statutory presumptions due to inconsistent defense. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
7. final dismissal of the petition and upholding of the sentence. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

MADHU JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode

2. The petitionerhasfiled thepresent revisionpetition under Sections 438 and 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’), assailing the judgment dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 173/2023 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 17.04.2023 and the order on sentence dated 17.05.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Case No. 581/2018, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, ‘NI Act’), was dismissed.

3. Along with the petition, CRL.M.A. 19750/2026 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Sections 438, 442 and 528 of the BNSS, seeking condonation of delay of 603 days in filing the petition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The case set up by the respondent/complainant is that the parties were on friendly terms, and in December, 2016, the petitioner approached him for a friendly loan of Rs.2,55,000/- for his personal requirement, which was advanced to him in cash. Towards discharge of this liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing no. 544430 dated 09.05.2017 for Rs.2,55,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, in favour of the respondent.

5. Onpresentation,thechequewasreturneddishonouredwiththeremarks “Funds Insufficient” vide return memo dated 26.05.2017. The respondent served a legal demand notice dated 09.06.2017 (Ex. CW1/3) through counsel at both the addresses of the petitioner. The demand was not met, and the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was instituted on 12.07.2017.

6. Notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed against the petitioner on 14.11.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The defence, as recorded that day in his own statement, was as under:

“I have took a loan of Rs. 29,200/- from the complainant, which I have paid to the complainant alongwith at interest of 5%. At the time of taking loan, complainant took 12 blank signed cheques from me as security with assurance of their return after repayment of loan. However, after return of the said loan amount, the said cheques were not returned back to me. Complainant has misused cheque in question.”

7. In evidence, the respondent examined himself as CW-1 by way of affidavit (Ex. CW1/A) and proved the original cheque (Ex. CW1/1), the cheque return memo (Ex. CW1/2), the legal notice (Ex. CW1/3), the postal receipts (Ex. CW1/4) and the tracking report (Ex. CW1/5). On an application filed by the petitioner under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, allowed vide order dated 14.10.2019, CW-1 was cross-examined on 17.02.2020.

8. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded on 16.12.2022, the petitioner took a different stand. He denied having taken any loan from the complainant and stated that the loan of Rs.29,200/- had been taken from one Kamal Singh,described byhimas the partner of the complainant.He claimed to have repaid a sum of Rs.38,900/- into th