Santosh Yadav vs. Ram Badan Yadav
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Santosh Yadav, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent, Ram Badan Yadav. The petitioner, a sole proprietor of M/s. Yadav Industrial Swing Machine, alleged that the respondent stood guarantor for a sale of three machines for Rs. 1,20,000 to one Pappu Yadav. Only Rs. 10,000 was paid, and the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 1,10,000, which was dishonoured. The respondent claimed he issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000 as a guarantee to Pappu Yadav, not the petitioner, and that the petitioner misused it. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent. The petitioner filed a leave petition against the acquittal judgment.
Held
The High Court allowed the leave petition and set aside the impugned acquittal judgment. The Court held that the Trial Court erred in holding that the respondent had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, solely on the oral assertion that the cheque amount was altered. The Court found that the respondent made no effort to send the cheque for handwriting analysis or to any forensic science laboratory to prove tampering. The Court also noted that the respondent's own testimony regarding the cost of the machines was inconsistent. Crucially, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's application to lead additional evidence, specifically a GST Registration Certificate, to prove his proprietorship of M/s. Yadav Industrial Swing Machine. Therefore, the Court directed the Trial Court to give the petitioner one more opportunity to produce and prove this documentary evidence, while also affording the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent, considering the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in favour of the complainant (petitioner)? 2. Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption by merely alleging that the cheque amount was altered from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,10,000, without any expert evidence? 3. Whether the Trial Court erred in holding that the petitioner failed to prove he was the sole proprietor of M/s. Yadav Industrial Swing Machine due to lack of documentary evidence like GST registration or bank records? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent, as the respondent's claim of cheque alteration was unsubstantiated and lacked any forensic evidence. The petitioner also contended that the Trial Court wrongly dismissed the case for lack of proof of proprietorship, and sought to lead additional evidence (GST Registration Certificate) to prove this fact. The petitioner relied on the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that he did not receive a legal notice, that the cheque was given to Pappu Yadav for Rs. 10,000 only, and that the petitioner altered the amount. He claimed the machines were worth Rs. 10,000, not Rs. 1,20,000. The respondent's defense was based on the alleged tampering of the cheque amount and the petitioner's failure to prove proprietorship.
Sections Cited
Section 138, Section 139, Section 313, Section 311
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022 CRL.L.P. 259/2019
None appears on behalf of the respondent despite service per order dated 13.02.2020. 2. This leave petition is filed against the acquittal judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court in CC No.514835/2016 filed under Section 138 NI Act against respondent herein.
For the reasons explained and failure of respondent to appear and contest, leave petition is allowed.
The appeal is taken up for disposal CRL.A. No. /2022 (To be numbered) and Crl.M.ANo.7651/2019
Appellant filed CC No.514835/2016 against the respondent/ accused under Section 138 NI Act stating inter alia he is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Yadav Industrial Swing Machine and was having business dealings This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
CRL.L.P. 259/2019 with the respondent/accused. One Pappu Yadav s/o Hira Lal Yadav, M- Block Gall No.9, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 purchased 3 Machines from the appellant and respondent stood guarantor for the sale of the said machines. Only on the assurance of the respondent/accused the said machines were given to the purchaser namely Pappu Yadav for the sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000 and only a sum of Rs.10,000 was paid by Pappu Yadav in cash. Thereafter, Mr. Pappu Yadav did not pay a single penny and kept on avoiding the appellant on one pretext of the other. The respondent was apprised of non-payment and in order to discharge his liability as guarantor the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.131329 dated 08.02.2008 of Rs.1,10,000/- drawn at ING Vysya Bank Limited West Patel Nagar Branch No.l3, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi to the appellant. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds with return memo dated 18.03.2008. The legal demand notice was issued, which was duly served upon respondent, but no payment was made, hence complaint was filed under Section 138 NI Act.
Pursuant to summons issued by the learned Trial Court, the respondent appeared and notice of accusation was served upon him on 25.01.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial stating though the subject cheque was signed by him, but he did not receive any legal notice and issued the said cheque to Pappu Yadav for Rs.10,000/- only for getting the embroidery sewing machine, which was not utilised by accused so he was asked to return the cheque to Pappu Yadav, but it was not returned by appellant despite request and he misused it. He alleged the appellant and Pappu Yadav are both relatives. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
CRL.L.P. 259/2019 7. In support of his complaint, the appellant examined himself as CW1 and proved his affidavit in evidence as Ex.C1; subject cheque as Ex.CW1/1; bank returning memo as Ex.CW1/2; legal demand notice dated 27.03.2008 as Ex.CW1/3; post receipts and AD card as Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/5. During the entire cross examination on behalf of the respondent, the testimony of appellant could not be impeached.
The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr P C was recorded wherein he asserted the subject cheque was not issued to appellant but rather was given to Pappu Yadav, a relative of the appellant and that respondent never received any demand notice and even did not know the appellant herein. The respondent examined himself as DW1 and Ram Niwas Yadav, his brother as DW2, they who deposed as under:- DW1: Statement of Sh.Ram Badan Yadav, S/o Sh, Bhagan Yadav, R/o 445/6, Khalsa Barriot, Gali No.4, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi, aged about 44 years. On SA Santosh Yadav, complainant and Pappu Yadav are relatives and Pappu Yadav came to me with intention to purchase the sewing machine from complainant. Pappu Yadav has taken a cheque of Rs.lO.OOO/- from me to give the same to the complainant as guarantee and stated that he will return the same within 10 to 15 days. Thereafter, Pappu never met me. I tried to search / contact him but he did not meet me. After some time, I had received a legal notice from the complainant. Xxxxx by Sh.S. C. Phogat, advocate for the complainant. I was not present at the time of purchasing of three machines by Pappu Yadav from complainant. The costs of all the three machines was about Rs.30,000/-. Pappu Yadav had paid Rs.10,000/- to the complainant at the time of purchasing of machines. It is wrong to suggest that the actual cost of all three machines were Rs 1,20,000/- and Pappu Yadav paid Rs.10,000/- in cash. It is further wrong to suggest that I issued a cheque of Rs.1,10,000/-. It is correct that I brought three machines in the court to compromise This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
CRL.L.P. 259/2019 the matter but the complainant did not agree. It Is wrong to suggest that the complainant filled the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that I had received the legal notice but despite receiving the notice, I failed to make the payment to the complainant, (Vol. I had received the notice from court only.) It is wrong to suggest that all the particulars have been filled up by me. It is wrong to suggest that Pappu Yadav is my relative, (Vol. Pappu Yadav is relative of complainant.) It is wrong to suggest that I am having liability of Rs.1,10,000/- towards the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
DW2 : Statement of Sh. Ram Niwas Yadav, S/o Sh. Bhagan Yadav, R/o W-72/131, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi, aged about 38years. On SA At the time of purchasing the machines, pappu Yadav has brought the complainant to our shop and my brother had Issued a cheque of Rs.10,000/- as guarantor of Pappu Yadav because Pappu Yadav had purchased three sewing machines from the complainant. Thereafter, my brother had forgotten to ask the complainant return the cheque given to Pappu Yadav. The amount of Rs.10,000/- only filled up by my brother in the cheque at that time and remaining particulars were blank. It is mistake of my brother that he had only filled up the amount in figure and he had not put the date, name and amount in words in the said cheque. The complainant has altered the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.l,10,000/- and has misused the cheque. The complainant had filed present false complaint against my brother. Xxxxx by Sh. S. C. Phogat, advocate for the complainant. I do not remember the date when the cheque was given by my brother to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that Pappu Yadav is partner and relative of us. I cannot tell whether Pappu Yadav had taken the machines from the complainant or not. It is correct that I along with my brother and Pappu Yadav had gone to the shop of the complainant. It is correct that the cheque was given by my brother at the shop of the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that complainant had not altered the cheque amount of Rs,10,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- and filled up name, date and amount in words himself. It is wrong to suggest that the cost of machines were Rs.l,20,000/-. (Vol. The cost of machines This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
CRL.L.P. 259/2019 were Rs.11,000/- each.) It Is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to save my brother.
The learned Trial Court passed the impugned acquittal judgment but but observed inter alia a) the legal notice Ex.CW1/3 was duly served upon respondent and b) the allegation qua filling of amount of cheque in words by appellant cannot be accepted, once the respondent had admitted his signatures on the cheque, thus, the respondent cannot escape his liability on the ground the cheque was not filled in by him. The judgment says the respondent had admitted his signatures on the cheque, thus a presumption under Section 139 NI Act is raised in favour of the appellant. However, the learned Judge was also of the view such presumption is rebuttable and then was swayed of the fact the appellant herein had not proved on record he is a sole proprietor of M/s.Yadav Industrial Swing Machine as did not bring on record the GST Registration Certificate or bank record. The learned Trial Court also noted appellant may have filled in higher price of the machine since per statement of accused machines were worth Rs.10,000/- hence the cheque of Rs.10,000/- was issued.
On the plea there were no sufficient documents to prove the appellant being a sole proprietor of M/s.Yadav Industrial Swing Machine, the appellant had filed an application under Section 311 Cr P C in this appeal for bringing on record additional evidence i.e. GST Registration Certificate issued by the Sales Tax Department wherein the appellant has been shown as a proprietor of M/s.Yadav Industrial Swing Machine. The appellant seeks to prove the same on record before the learned Trial Court.
The learned Trial Court however erred in holding the respondent had This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
CRL.L.P. 259/2019 rebutted the presumption in the present case simply by saying the amount of cheque was increased / altered from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- since no efforts were made by the respondent to even send the cheque to any hand writing expert and / or FSL for getting it tested if it has been tampered with or not. Simply by saying orally the cheque has been tempered was insufficient to rebut presumption.
There is no doubt accused had even brought three machines before the Court, as is evident from the cross examination. Moreso, the respondent has himself deposed the cost of machine to be Rs.30,000/-, though in cross examination also stated he was not present at the time of purchase of such machines, hence he could not have said with authenticity about the cost of such machines.
Since the appellant intends to lead additional evidence to bring on record the documents to prove the appellant was a proprietor of such firm, the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to appellant to bring/prove on record the documents qua firm in question, while affording an opportunity to respondent to cross examine in accordance with law.
Both the parties to appear before the learned Trial Court/Successor Court on 23.01.2023 and the learned Trial Court shall proceed after securing the presence of respondent in accordance with law.
In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
CRL.L.P. 259/2019 16. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court/Successor Court for information and compliance.
YOGESH KHANNA, J. DECEMBER 06, 2022 M This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/06/2026 at 21:44:35
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.