Aditya Gupta v. Vijayender Sharma

MADHU JAIN, J JULY 28, 2026/P

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28.7.2026 Uploaded on: 30.7.2026 + CRL.L.P. 19/2026 & CRL. M.A. 11264/2026 ADITYA GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Dawneesh Shaktivastsa & Mohd. Yasin, Advs. versus VIJAYENDER SHARMA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Madhu Jain, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 11265/2026 (exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. 3. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 378 Cr.P.C.) assailing the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-02-cum-Special Judge (NDPS Act), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/accused was allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2025 and the order on sentence dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned JMFC (NI Act), Digital Court-02, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1450/2022 titled Aditya Gupta v. Vijender Sharma was set aside and the respondent was acquitted. 4. The case of the appellant/complainant, is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, he intended to commence the business of purchase and sale of 3M masks. It was alleged that through the Special Power of Attorney holder of the appellant/complainant, Shri Vivek Garg, the respondent shared that he was engaged in the business of importing 3M masks and assured supply upon receipt of an advance amount. Acting upon such representation, the appellant transferred an aggregate amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the respondent's business entity through RTGS in May 2020. It was further alleged that despite repeated assurances, the masks were never supplied. 5. According to the appellant, although certain amounts were subsequently remitted by the respondent, the respondent ultimately issued a cheque bearing No. 157774 dated 03.01.2022 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on 19.03.2022 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, a legal demand notice dated 15.04.2022 was issued to the respondent. Since payment was not made within the statutory period, a complaint under Section 138 NI Act came to be instituted before the learned Trial Court. 6. During trial, the appellant examined his Special Power of Attorney holder, Shri Vivek Garg, as CW-1, who relied upon the cheque in question, the return memo, bank statement, legal notice, postal receipts, the Special Power of Attorney, an assurance letter allegedly issued by the respondent, WhatsApp conversations and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the complaint. The respondent did not lead any defence evidence. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the learned Trial Court, by judgment dated 26.04.2025, convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thereafter, by order on sentence dated 03.05.2025, the respondent was directed to pay a fine of Rs.25,00,000/-, together with simple interest @ 7% per annum payable to the complainant as compensation, with a default sentence of twenty days' simple imprisonment. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 134/2025 before the learned Sessions Judge. By the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2026, the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence and acquitted the respondent. 8. The learned Appellate Court, inter alia held that the statutory demand notice was not in conformity with the requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act, that admittedly part-payments had been received prior to presentation of the cheque without any endorsement as contemplated under Section 56 of the Act; that reliance placed by the Trial Court upon the WhatsApp conversations was unsustainabl