In Dr. I.A. Khan v. State & Anr., Crl. Rev. P. 122/2020, pronounced on 27 October 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge to a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, affirmed earlier by the Sessions Court at Karkardooma. Justice Sanjeev Narula's judgment is a compact statement of two propositions that decide most cheque-bounce revisions: the revisional court will not re-weigh evidence absent perversity, and the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are not rebutted by a bare explanation. The sentence, however, was reduced — a reminder that revisional restraint on conviction can coexist with flexibility on sentence.
From collaboration to complaint
The dispute began as a property collaboration: a 2013 agreement for developing the petitioner\'s Ghaziabad property, with the complainant to construct the upper floors. On 1 February 2016, the parties recorded a handwritten settlement — exhibited as CW-1/Q — under which the complainant relinquished his claim to the second floor in exchange for Rs 30 lakh, payable through three cheques of Rs 10 lakh each. Two were dishonoured for insufficient funds; the third came back with the bank\'s endorsement "alteration in amount". The statutory demand notice of 27 June 2016 drew no payment, and the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted; the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, affirmed.
What a revision can and cannot do
Justice Sanjeev Narula began where every cheque-bounce revision must: with the limits of the jurisdiction. Concurrent findings of fact are not reopened unless shown to be perverse or legally untenable, and none were. Within those limits, the Court tested each strand of the defence.
The Court also noted a point that practitioners under-use at their peril: the petitioner\'s silence in the face of the demand notice. A recipient who disputes liability is expected to say so when the statute gives him the occasion; silence then undermines the defence raised years later at trial.
Conviction firm, sentence softened
Having affirmed the conviction and the compensation of Rs 42 lakh, the Court turned to sentence with a different instrument. The transaction had its origin in a settlement; the petitioner had deposited Rs 21 lakh; and his family circumstances were pressed. Imprisonment was reduced from ten months to six, with the default sentence of two months undisturbed. Sums of Rs 12.6 lakh held with the Registry and Rs 8.4 lakh with the trial court were directed to the complainant, to be adjusted against the compensation.
The structure of the outcome — conviction intact, sentence calibrated — reflects how Delhi courts currently balance the NI Act\'s deterrent purpose against its essentially compensatory character. The surest mitigation in a Section 138 matter remains money actually deposited or paid; rhetoric about hardship moves a court far less than a banker\'s receipt.
The takeaway for drawers and payees
For drawers of cheques, the case repeats three warnings: reply to the statutory notice, prove — not merely assert — any security-cheque arrangement, and raise set-off claims at the first opportunity with documents. For payees, it confirms that a settlement document proved through an attesting witness provides an independent foundation for liability beyond the presumptions. And for both sides, it illustrates that the revisional court is not a third trial: by that stage, the field of battle has narrowed to perversity and sentence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the underlying transaction?
A 2013 collaboration agreement for developing a Ghaziabad property, followed by a handwritten settlement of 1 February 2016 under which the complainant gave up his claim to the second floor for Rs 30 lakh, paid through three cheques of Rs 10 lakh each. Two cheques bounced for insufficient funds; the third was returned with the remark "alteration in amount". A demand notice of 27 June 2016 went unanswered, and the complaint under Section 138 followed.
Why did the defence of "security cheques" fail?
Admitted signatures and delivery of the cheques triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. To rebut them, the accused needed a probable defence supported by material — not a bare explanation. The affidavit said to show the cheques were security was never admitted or proved, the set-off plea came late, and the settlement document stood proved through an attesting witness. The presumptions therefore carried the complainant home.
What did the Court say about the "altered" third cheque?
The claim of material alteration failed because the amount in words and figures matched and no unauthorised change was proved. The Court distinguished precedent where the alteration was apparent on the face of the cheque. An argument of non-presentation was also rejected as belated and factually unsupported. The accused's silence after the statutory demand notice weighed against his defence.
What relief did the petitioner get?
Only on sentence. Considering his family circumstances, the settlement nature of the transaction and Rs 21 lakh already deposited, the Court reduced imprisonment from ten months to six, keeping the two-month default sentence. The compensation of Rs 42 lakh was affirmed as reasonable, with amounts held by the Registry and the trial court to be released to the complainant and adjusted against it.