‘Shifting shape like a river’: Delhi court upholds woman’s conviction in cheque bounce case

A Delhi court has upheld the conviction of a woman in a cheque bounce case, observing that her defence “shifted like a river” through various stages of trial, from a complete denial to a claim of repayment.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler was hearing the appeal filed by a woman against a November 2024 magisterial court order convicting her under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act in a cheque bounce case.

The order on sentence was pronounced the next month, directing her to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh within 90 days, or face simple imprisonment for three months.

“A defence, unlike truth, need not remain constant. It can begin as a categorical denial, mature into a qualified admission, and end as an altogether different narrative – shifting shape with every fresh stage of a trial, much as a river changes its course around the obstacles placed in its path. The present appeal is a study in precisely such a phenomenon,” the judge said in the order dated July 8.

The appellant, Omwati Tokas, set up three “mutually destructive” versions of her defence, where she initially denied that the cheque belonged to her or had her signature, he said.

Four years later, during cross-examination, she claimed the cheque was handed over as “security” for some carpentry work at her residence, and finally, in her statement to the court, she admitted that the signature was her but claimed the loan had already been repaid in instalments, the judge said.

“Complete denial, followed by a qualified admission coupled with a plea of security, followed in turn by a plea of discharge – three defences at three distinct stages, each mutually destructive of the one preceding it,” the judge said, adding that such a trajectory of “self-contradiction” determined the fate of the appeal.

The case dates back to 2011-2012, when the complainant, Narsi Lal, advanced loans of Rs 3 lakh to Tokas to meet family necessities. Lal, a carpenter, said that he had arranged the funds by selling a plot of land meant for his children’s education.

When Tokas issued a cheque for Rs 3 lakh in April 2016 to repay the amount, it was returned unpaid by the bank citing “insufficient funds”.

Upholding the magisterial court’s order to award Rs 5 lakh compensation, the judge observed that the trial had continued for more than eight years due to the “successive and shifting defences” raised by Tokas.

The judge underlined that Tokas failed to rebut the legal presumption in favour of the complainant and that her defence was “bald, vague and self-contradictory”.

He also trashed her argument that the legal demand notice was not received at her residence, saying it had been duly served and that she was merely not personally present at that time.

“Even applying ordinary interest on the principal amount of Rs 3 lakh over this period, the compensation of Rs 5 lakh awarded by the trial (magistrate’s) court cannot, by any measure, be said to be excessive or disproportionate.

“The submission that the appellant had already undergone 48 days’ incarceration, even if correct, would, at best, be a matter to be reckoned against the default sentence at the stage of its execution, and furnishes no ground to hold the quantum of compensation or the default sentence, as such, to be unreasonable or excessive,” the judge said.

“There was no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order on sentence,” he added.