Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction In Rs. 5 Lakh Cheque Dishonour Case, Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts, reiterating that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used for reappreciation of evidence in cheque dishonour cases.

The Delhi High Court on 07.05.2026 upheld the conviction of Brijesh Kumar alias Neetu in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, dismissing his revision petition and affirming the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court.

The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner and directed him to deposit the fine amount within three days, failing which default sentencing proceedings would be initiated.

The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “….neither of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for revisionist can succeed in unsettling the impugned judgments of the trial court and/or the appellate court. Both courts below having concurred in conviction and sentence, interference by this Court is on extremely limited issues. Neither of the impugned judgments can be termed as a perverse judgment.”

The matter arose from a financial transaction between the petitioner and respondent Mukesh Garg.

According to the complaint, the respondent had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner on March 25, 2015.

The petitioner had assured repayment by January or February 2016. In discharge of the liability, the petitioner issued a cheque dated February 16, 2016.

However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.

Following the dishonour, the respondent issued the mandatory statutory notice demanding payment within the prescribed period.

Despite service of notice, the amount remained unpaid, prompting the respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

After examining the evidence and submissions, the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court.

Additionally, the court directed payment of Rs. 7,40,000 as compensation, inclusive of interest calculated at 8 percent.

The court further ordered that failure to pay the compensation within one month would result in four months’ simple imprisonment.

The petitioner challenged the conviction before the appellate court, but the appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s judgment was upheld. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a criminal revision petition.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent had not disclosed the alleged loan transaction in his income tax returns, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of the claim.

It was also contended that the cheque in question had allegedly been stolen or misused in connection with a separate property dispute between the parties.

The High Court, however, rejected these submissions and observed that its revisional jurisdiction was extremely limited. The Court clarified that in revision proceedings, it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those already reached by the lower courts unless there is patent illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice.

The Court noted that both the trial court and the appellate court had thoroughly examined the petitioner’s defence regarding alleged misuse of cheques and had rejected it after detailed analysis of the evidence on record. Importantly, the petitioner himself had admitted during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that he had signed the cheque and had received the statutory legal notice issued by the complainant.

The Court observed that these admissions substantially weakened the petitioner’s defence and reinforced the statutory presumption operating in favour of the complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court further held that alleged non disclosure of the loan transaction in income tax filings does not by itself invalidate proceedings under Section 138 or extinguish liability arising from issuance of a cheque.

Emphasising the object of the cheque dishonour law, the Court reiterated that issuance of a cheque carries with it a legal obligation and that dishonour due to insufficient funds attracts criminal consequences unless the statutory liability is discharged within the prescribed period.

Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as meritless.

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the compensation amount within three days and ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the trial court for compliance and enforcement proceedings.

Case Title: Brijesh Kumar @Neetu v. Mukesh Garg

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Date of Judgement: 07.05.2026